Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 01.25.2022 WorkshopNotice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas January 25, 2022 The Georgetown City Council will meet on January 25, 2022 at 2:00 PM at City Council Chambers, 510 W 9th Street, Georgetown, TX 78626 The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary's Office, at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 808 Martin Luther King Jr. Street, Georgetown, TX 78626 for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Policy Development/Review Workshop - A Presentation, discussion and possible direction on amending Chapter 8.04 "Fire Prevention Code" of the Code of Ordinances -- John Sullivan, Fire Chief B Presentation, discussion and possible direction regarding improvements to the development process as it relates to the requirements enacted through HB 3167, also known as the shot clock process -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director C Presentation and discussion regarding the proposed Final Draft of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan -- Kimberly Garret, Parks and Recreation Director; and Dan Seder, GreenPlay, LLC D Presentation and discussion regarding the draft Parks and Recreation Cost Recovery Model and Policy -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director; and Teresa Jackson, GreenPlay, LLC Executive Session In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session. E Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items - Litigation Update - Berry Creek Interceptor Phases 1-3, Parcel 12 (Schwegmann) -- Jim Kachelmeyer, Assistant City Attorney - Berry Creek Interceptor Phases 1-3, Parcel 13 (Homeyer) -- Jim Kachelmeyer, Assistant City Attorney Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters - Purchased Power Update - General Agreement with STX on purchase and sale of renewable energy certificates Sec. 551.072: Deliberations about Real Property - Block 27, property located near the corner of 6th Street and Austin Avenue - Berry Creek Interceptor Phases 1-3, Parcel 1 (Pinnacle Building Co., Inc.) -- Jim Page 1 of 291 Kachelmeyer, Assistant City Attorney - Potential Sale of Surplus Property to Habitat for Humanity -- Jim Kachelmeyer, Assistant City Attorney Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations - Project Lonestar - Project Access Adjournment Certificate of Posting I, Robyn Densmore, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. Street, Georgetown, TX 78626, a place readily accessible to the general public as required by law, on the day of , 2022, at , and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. Robyn Densmore, City Secretary Page 2 of 291 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop January 25, 2022 SUBJECT: Presentation, discussion and possible direction on amending Chapter 8.04 "Fire Prevention Code" of the Code of Ordinances -- John Sullivan, Fire Chief ITEM SUMMARY: Adoption of the proposed amendments will allow the City of Georgetown to clarify and/or improve existing code language for the preservation of life and property. The Fire Marshal's Office has met with various stakeholders, developers, and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). The proposed code changes are being presented today during the Council workshop and a copy of the amendments have been included. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: John Sullivan, Fire Chief ATTACHMENTS: Cover memo Proposed Amendments Page 3 of 291 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop January 25, 2022 SUBJECT: Presentation, discussion and possible direction amending Chapter 8.04 `Fire Prevention Code" of the Code of Ordinances -- John Sullivan, Fire Chief ITEM SUMMARY: Adoption of the proposed amendments will allow the City of Georgetown to clarify and/or improve existing code language for the preservation of life and property. The Fire Marshal's Office has met with various stakeholders, developers, and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). The proposed code changes are being presented today during the Council workshop and a copy of the amendments have been included. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: John Sullivan, Fire Chief ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Amendments Page 4 of 291 -CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL FORM Code: IFC - 2015 105.5.7.19 PROPONENT Georgetown Fire Department, City of Georgetown REVISION Add new subsection [A] 105.5.7.19 Mobile Food Vendor Commented [JS1]: BSC supported as written A MOBILE FOOD VENDOR. AN OPERATION PERMIT IS REQUIRED WHEN AN ENCLOSED TRAILER, OR ENCLOSED TRUCK THAT USES PROPANE OR ANY OTHER HEAT SOURCE TO PREPARE FOOD FOR SALE. THIS DOSEN'T INCLUDE PREPACKAGED FOOD. REASON The code revision clarifies the need for an operational permit by Mobile Food Vendors. FISCAL IMPACT The code change will not cause any extra fees from what we have already been collecting. Page 5 of 291 CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL FORM Code: IFC - 2015 503.3.3 PROPONENT Georgetown Fire Department, City of Georgetown REVISION The Fire Code, Section 503.3.31, is hereby amended to add the following: Commented [J52]: BSC supported as written 503.3.3 Certain subdivision street fire lanes- In subdivision streets where parking is not allowed on one side or both sides of the street, fire lanes are required shall be marked and maintained in the following manner: PRIVATE STREETS CAN CHOOSE EITHER OPTION 1 OR 2. PUBLIC STREETS MUST DO OPTION 1. 1. A sign 12-inches wide and 18-inches in height with red lettering on a white reflective background and border in red stating "FIRE LANE -TOW AWAY ZONE", "^I ^".. WITH THEW -- __ _: Tine S- -DC OF THE STREET" OR 60-TH CIII�` OF THE CTR€€T L. The words "fire lane" by themselves are not acceptable. Sign shall be mounted conspicuously along the edge of the fire lane. Sign must be at the beginning of a street and spaced no more than 250 feet apart at a minimum height of 7 feet above finished grade. 2. Red stripes and curbs will contain the wording "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" or "FIRE LANE - TOW AWAY ZONE" or combination of similar wording painted in is four -inch white letters. the words "fire lane" by itself is not acceptable. Wording must not be spaced more than 30 feet apart. REASON Private (neighborhood) streets are given the option of following the same signage requirements that are imposed on public streets OR a less visually obtrusive options of painting fire lane curbs. FISCAL IMPACT The code change will not have a material impact to costs or fees. Page 6 of 291 CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL FORM Code: IFC - 2015 503.9 PROPONENT Georgetown Fire Department, City of Georgetown RFVISION 503.9 SPECIAL EVENT FIRE LANES. No person shall park a vehicle in any fire lane designated by the posting of a sign which complies with 503.3.4 option "markings "fire lanemarkings" and being the nnrhi ans of the f..iin...inn StFeeto• I North Sld•e-of 3rd Afh 5th Rfh 74h Qfh � 10th and 1 ith stfeetS east Of � AF4iR theF I ong � ^�^s Formatted: b1 1. ANY STREET THAT IS DESIGNATED DURING A SPECIAL EVENTS PLANNING, WITH THE OVERSEEING BY THE FIRE CODE OFFICIAL. S 2. all cars parked in violation of this section may be towed at the owner's expense. Formatted: b1 REASON By not specifically designating certain streets. First this will allow more flexibility in case of construction in designated areas, and secondly allow for us to expand fire lanes, due the growth of the events. FISCAL IMPACT The code change will not have a material impact to costs or fees. Page 7 of 291 CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL FORM Code: IFC - 2015 503.4.1 PROPONENT Georgetown Fire Department, City of Georgetown REVISION 503.4.1 ENFORCEMENT. The Fire Chief, Fire Code Official, or the Chief of Police, or designees are authorized to issue parking citations for any vehicle AND/or similar obstruction, or to have said vehicle removed by towing it away without further notice, such vehicle or obstruction may be redeemed by payment of the towage and storage charges at the owner's expense. No parking citations shall be voided, nor shall the violator be relieved of any penalty assessed by a judge of the municipal court for any violation of this provision be the redemption of the obstruction from the storage facility. REASON The word AND was added as a recommended per GPD to allow for enforcement of towing and ticketing, if needed. FISCAL IMPACT The code change will not have a material impact to costs or fees. Page 8 of 291 CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL FORM Code: IFC - 2015 507.2.1 PROPONENT Georgetown Fire Department, City of Georgetown l.-UkUkire7kil The Fire Code, Section 507.2.1, is hereby amended to add the following: Commented [153]: BSC supported as written 507.2.1 PRIVATE FIRE SERVICE MAINS. Private fire service mains and appurtenances shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 24 (2019 Edition). THE INSTALLATION OF ALL PRIVATE FIRE LINE(S) SHALL BE DONE BY A SPRINKLER CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION - UNDERGROUND (SCR-U) LICENSED COMPANY. REASON To ensure that private fire lines are installed in accordance to State Fire Marshal Office (SFMO) requirements and consistent with industry best practice. FIRCAL IMPACT The code change will not have a material impact to costs or fees. Page 9 of 291 CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL FORM Code: IFC - 2015 507.5.7 PROPONENT Georgetown Fire Department, City of Georgetown REVISION �he Fire Code, Section 507.5.7�, is hereby amended to add the following: City of Georgetown Fire Hydrant Color Code System. Private fire hydrant maintenance shall be in accordance with NFPA 291. A. All private hydrant barrels will be painted red with the bonnet painted using the hydrant flow standard in paragraph c of this section to indicate flow. It will be the customer's responsibility to test and maintain their private fire hydrant(s). B. HYDRANTS THAT ARE FE-€E)-FED FROM A PRIVATE FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM PUMP/OR STORAGE TANK SHALL BE CHROME YELLOW. C. NON -POTABLE WATER HYDRANT SHALL BE PAINTED SAFETY PURPLE. D. All private fire hydrants should be inspected, maintained, and flow tested annually and color coded to indicate the expected fire flow from the hydrant during normal operation. Such color applied to the fire hydrant by painting the bonnet the appropriate color for the expected flow condition. E. HYDRANT FLOW CODING STANDARDS. Public hydrants will have the bonnets painted silver, the hydrants will be flow tested, and the bonnet painted BASED ON RESIDUAL PRESSURE OF 20 PSI, using the hydrant flow standard in as follows: RFARON Allows for a standard identification of private and/or non -potable water FISCAL IMPACT The code change will not have a material impact to costs or fees. Commented [J54]: BSC supported with minor spelling correction Page 10 of 291 CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL FORM Code: IFC - 2015 903.3.10 PROPONENT Georgetown Fire Department, City of Georgetown REVISION The Fire Code. Section 903.3.10 amended to read as follows: Commented [J55]: BSC supported as written Backflow protection. Modifications to water -based fire protection systems without backflow protection will require the installation of a backflow preventer per the City of Georgetown's plumbing code. ALL FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS WITH A FDC SHALL HAVE A REDUCED PRESSURE ZONE OR REDUCED PRESSURE DETECTOR ASSEMBLY INSTALLED. RFARON To comply with engineering requirements of City. FISCAL IMPACT The reduced pressure zone (RPZ) or detector will have an average cost of $1,500.00 Page 11 of 291 CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL FORM Code: IFC - 2015 907.2.11 PROPONENT Georgetown Fire Department, City of Georgetown REVISION The Fire Code, Section 907.2.11, Single and Multiple -Station Smoke Alarms, is maintained without Commented [JS6]: BSC supported as written amendment. REASON This section was inadvertently deleted during the code adoption of the IFC 2015 amendments and needs to be reaffirmed as part of the adopted code. FISCAL IMPACT The code change will not have a material impact to costs or fees. Page 12 of 291 CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL FORM Code: IFC - 2015 912.1.1 PROPONENT Georgetown Fire Department, City of Georgetown REVISION The Fire Code, Section 912.1.1, Number of Hose Connections, is hereby amended as follows: [Commented.[157]: BSC supported and cost estimate added Number of hose connections. Fire department connections shall include a minimum of one 5" STORZ connections for a system with a demand up to 500 GPM. Systems with a demand greater than 500 GPM shall require an additional 2.5 connection for each 250 gallons of system demand. THIS APPLIES TO EXTRA HAZARD GROUP 1 & 2. STORAGE OCCUPANCIES. Exception: a single 2.5" FDC inlet is allowed for single risers on 13r systems. I-I=Y±WiTPI To help ensure adequate water supply to support the fire department connection (FDC). FISCAL IMPACT The code change will have an average cost of $1,500.00 per system. Page 13 of 291 CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL FORM Code: IFC — 2015 Chapter 61 PROPONENT Georgetown Fire Department, City of Georgetown INZkyjkirr7ki1 The Fire Code, has deleted the entirety of Chapter 61 Liquefied Petroleum Gases Commented [J58]• BSC supported as written CHAPTER 61 i Q EFIED PETRO' ED inn GASES RFARON The Texas Railroad Commission has jurisdiction and enforcement of LPG requirements. FISCAL IMPACT The code change will not have a material impact to costs or fees. Page 14 of 291 CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL FORM Code: IFC - 2015 Section D 103.6.2 PROPONENT Georgetown Fire Department, City of Georgetown REVISION The Fire Code, Section D 103.6.2, is hereby amended to read as follows: Commented [J59]: BSC supported as written FIRE LANE SIGNS AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION D103.6 SHALL BE POSTED ON ONE SIDE OF FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS MORE THAN 26 FEET WIDE (7925 MM) AND LESS THAN 31 FEET WIDE (9754 W. MEASURED 32' FROM BACK OF CURB TO BACK TO CURB (THIS APPLIES TO VALLEY CURBS). REASON To align the fire lane requirements with the Unified Development Code (UDC) requirements. FISCAL IMPACT The code change will not have a material impact to costs or fees. Page 15 of 291 CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL FORM Code: IFC - 2015 202 PROPONENT Georgetown Fire Department, City of Georgetown REVISION The Fire Code, Section 202, Definitions, is hereby amended to add the following new definitions: Commented [JS10]: BSC supported with minor typographical error corrected ANIMAL HOUSING OR CARE FACILITY. FACILITIES USED FOR TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT HOUSING OF ANIMALS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING A SERVICE, PARTICIPATING IN A INCLUDES, WITHOUT LIMITATION, GROOMING, ANIMAL HOSPITALS, BOARDING FACILITIES, KENNELS, ANIMAL SHELTERS, POUNDS, VETERINARY CLINIC, AND PET RELATED BUSINESSES. CONSTANT SUPERVISION. FOR GROUP B ANIMAL HOUSING OR CARE FACILITIES, CONSTANT SUPERVISION MEANS 24 HOUR ON -SITE STAFF WHO ARE LEGALLY COMPETENT, 18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER AND CAPABLE OF RESPONDING TO PROBLEMS OR EMERGENCIES THAT COULD IMPACT THE SAFETY OR LIVES OF THE ANIMALS BEING HOUSED OR CARED FOR. REASON Animal housing or care facilities are undefined within the Fire Code and the addition of these terms will provide a clear definition of these occupancies and the associated supervision requirements. FISCAL IMPACT The code change will not have a material impact to costs or fees. Commented [JS11 ]: "Five or fewer" addition allows for language that is consistent with USDA requirements. Also, aligns with COG definition of "kennel" where "five or more dogs or cats or any combination of five cats and dogs are being kept for boardings, training, or breeding purposes." Commented [CW12]: There was a question about excluding equestrian facilities. There may be barn stall conditions that preclude the installation of a fire detection and alarm system. I don't think it is necessary (and didn't at the hearing) so long as our staff recognizes that the code will allow us to deal with such situations as a code modification if the alarm system is truly impractical. Commented [JS13R12]: Do you feel that the current definition also contemplates properties that are used for breeding? If not, we may want to include that in the definition. Commented [JS14]: Definition refined to align with Longview Ordinance Commented [JS15]: Definition refined to align with Longview Ordinance Page 16 of 291 CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL FORM Code: IFC - 2015 202 PROPONENT Georgetown Fire Department, City of Georgetown REVISION The Fire Code, Section 202, Business Group B, is hereby amended to add the following: Commented [JS16]: BSC supported with inclusion of "Shelters' within amended language Business Group B occupancy includes, among others, the use of a building or structure, or a portion thereof, for office, professional or service -type transactions, including storage of records and accounts. Business occupancies shall include, but not be limited to, the following: Airport traffic control towers Ambulatory care facilities Animal HOUSING OR CARE FACILITIES, INCLUDING SHELTERS, BREEDING, GROOMING, DAYCARE, hospitals, kennels and pounds The balance to remain unchanged. REASON Animal housing or care facilities are undefined within the Fire Code and the addition of these terms will provide a clear definition of these occupancies. FISCAL IMPACT The code change will not have a material impact to costs or fees. Page 17 of 291 CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL FORM Code: IFC — 2015 903.2.13 Deleted and Replaced with 903.2.2 and 903.2.2.2 PROPONENT Georgetown Fire Department, City of Georgetown INAVAFAre7Ll1 The Fire Code, Section 903.2.13 is deleted and replaced with 903.2.2 amended to read as follows: 903.2.4-32. Group B. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided for Group B occupancies where the fire area exceeds 10,000 square feet (929 m2). 903.2.2.1. Ambulatory care facilities. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed throughout the entire floor containing an ambulatory care facility where either of the following conditions exist at any time: 1. Four or more care recipients are incapable of self-preservation, whether rendered incapable by staff or staff has accepted responsibility for care recipients already incapable. 2. One or more care recipients that are incapable of self-preservation are located at other than the level of exit discharge serving such a facility. In buildings where ambulatory care is provided on levels other than the level of exit discharge, an automatic sprinkler system shall be installed throughout the entire floor where such care is provided as well as all floors below, and all floors between the level of ambulatory care and the nearest level of exit discharge, including the level of exit discharge. 903.2.2.2. ANIMAL HOUSING OR CARE FACILITIES. AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 903.3 AND 903.4 SHALL BE PROVIDED IN FIRE AREAS CONTAINING AN ANIMAL HOUSING OR CARE FACILITY WHEN THE ANIMALS ARE NOT PROVIDED WITH CONSTANT SUPERVISION. EXCEPTIONS: 1. AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM IS NOT REQUIRED IN ANIMAL HOUSING OR CARE FACILITIES SERVING 30 OR FEWER ANIMALS WHERE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MET. A. WALLS AND CEILINGS HAVE A CLASS A FINISH AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 803, AND B. THE FACILITY IS PROVIDED WITH A SUPERVISED FIRE ALARM SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 907.2.2.2. Commented [J517]: BSC supported with additional language to clarify the location of the fire -resistive material in section 2 (A) Page 18 of 291 AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM IS NOT REQUIRED IN ANIMAL HOUSING OR CARE FACILITIES SERVING 50 OR FEWER ANIMALS WHERE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MET. A. THE FACILITY IS OF 1-HOUR FIRE RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BOUNDARY WALLS OF THE KENNEL AREA, AND B. WALLS AND CEILINGS HAVE A CLASS A FINISH AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 803, AND C. THE FACILITY IS PROVIDED WITH A SUPERVISED FIRE ALARM SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 907.2.2.2. AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM IS NOT REQUIRED IN ANIMAL HOUSING OR CARE FACILITIES WHERE EVERY ANIMAL HAS IMMEDIATE AND UNOBSTRUCTED ACCESS TO AN EXTERIOR AREA OF SAFETY APPROVED BY THE FIRE CODE OFFICIAL AND THE FACILITY IS PROVIDED WITH A SUPERVISED FIRE ALARM SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 907.2.2.2. REASON To reduce the risk of life loss through early control of fire and/or identification/notification of fire or smoke producing events. FISCAL IMPACT An automatic sprinkler is estimated to cost between $70,000.00 to $80,000.00 for a 10,000 sqft building. All buildings with a fire area that exceeds 10,000 sqft are currently required to install a sprinkler system. Cost estimate is based upon a building with 1,500 sqft office and 8,500 sqft open kennel area. Page 19 of 291 CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL FORM Code: IFC - 2015 907.2.2.2 PROPONENT Georgetown Fire Department, City of Georgetown REVISION The Fire Code, Section 907.2.2.2 is hereby amended to read as follows: ANIMAL HOUSING OR CARE FACILITIES. FIRE AREAS CONTAINING AN ANIMAL HOUSING OR CARE FACILITY SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH AN ELECTRONICALLY SUPERVISED AUTOMATIC SMOKE DETECTION SYSTEM )NHENI ennnnel 2 ADC RCCTRAlNlFmD IN KF=NlNICI a C) roeT�e no BY OTHER EQUIPMENT THAT 1NQ II 0 PREVENT THE ANIMAAI S COn114 PSCADING TO -AN EXTERIGR AoEn OF SAFETY IN SPACES PROVIDED WITH A SOURCE OF HEAT OR LIGHT BUT OTHERWISE UNCONDITIONED SRAS€S, IN LIEU OF SMOKE DETECTION THE ALARM SYSTEM MAY BE ACTIVATED BY QUICK RESPONSE HEAT DETECTORS WITH A RESPONSE TIME INDEX OF LESS THAN 100 (E.G. RTI CLASSIFICATION OF "QUICK", "ULTRA FAST', "V-FAST'). EXCEPTION: SMOKE DETECTORS AND/OR QUICK RESPONSE HEAT DETECTORS ARE NOT REQUIRED WHERE THE BUILDING IS EQUIPPED THROUGHOUT WITH AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTIONS 903.3 AND 903.4 AND ACTIVATION OF THE AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM ACTIVATES NOTIFICATION APPLIANCES AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 907.2.2.2.1. REASON To provide for an automatic notification to the fire department when smoke and/or fire is detected, FISCAL IMPACT The automatic smoke detection and/or heat detection is estimated to cost approximately $1.15 to $2.00/sgft and this equates a cost of $11,500.00 to $20,000.00 for a 10,000 sqft building, Alarm monitoring costs are estimated at $600 per year. Commented [J518]: BSC supported as written Commented [J5191: We need to revisit the cost estimate because COG Animal Shelterjust received a quote for $44K to install a fire detection system. We should have a new install price and a retrofit price estimate. Page 20 of 291 CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL FORM Code: IFC - 2015 907.2.2.2.1 PROPONENT Georgetown Fire Department, City of Georgetown REVISION The Fire Code, has included a new sub -section 907.2.2.2.1 to read as follows: Commented [J520]: Bsc supported as written NOTIFICATION APPLIANCES SHALL PROVIDE AUDIBLE AND VISUAL ALARM SIGNALS IN OFFICE AREAS AND OTHER AREAS WITHIN THE FIRE AREA WHERE NO ANIMALS ARE HOUSED OR CARED FOR. NOTIFICATION APPLIANCES WITHIN AREAS WHERE ANIMALS ARE HOUSED OR CARED FOR SHALL PROVIDE ONLY VISUAL ALARM SIGNALS. RFARON To reduce the stress and negative health impact from audible alarms. FISCAL IMPACT The code change will not have a material impact to costs or fees. Page 21 of 291 CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL FORM Code: IFC - 2015 915.1.1 through 915.1.5 PROPONENT Georgetown Fire Department, City of Georgetown REVISION The Fire Code, Section 915.1.1 through 915.1.5 is hereby amended as follows: Commented [JS21]: BSC supported as written 915.1.1 Where required. Carbon monoxide detection shall be provided in Group 1-1, 1-2, 1-4 and R occupancies, IN GROUP B FIREAREAS CONTAINING AN ANIMAL HOUSING OR CARE FACILITY. and in classrooms in Group E occupancies in the locations specified in Section 915.2 where any of the conditions in Sections 915.1.2 through 915.1.6 exist. 915.1.2 Fuel -burning appliances and fuel -burning fireplaces. Carbon monoxide detection shall be provided in dwelling units, sleeping units, ROOMS OF ANIMAL HOUSING OR CARE FACILITIES WHERE ANIMALS ARE HOUSED OR CARED FOR, and classrooms that contain a fuel -burning appliance or a fuel -burning fireplace. 915.1.3 Forced -air furnaces. Carbon monoxide detection shall be provided in dwelling units, sleeping units, ROOMS OF ANIMAL HOUSING OR CARE FACILITIES WHERE ANIMALS ARE HOUSED OR CARED FOR, and classrooms served by a fuel -burning, forced -air furnace. Exception: Carbon monoxide detection shall not be required in dwelling units, sleeping units, ROOMS OF ANIMAL HOUSING OR CARE FACILITIES WHERE ANIMALS ARE HOUSED OR CARED FOR, and classrooms where carbon monoxide detection is provided in the first room or area served by each main duct leaving the furnace, and the carbon monoxide alarm signals are automatically transmitted to an approved location. 915.1.4 Fuel -burning appliances outside of dwelling units, sleeping units, ROOMS OF ANIMAL HOUSING OR CARE FACILITIES WHERE ANIMALS ARE HOUSED OR CARED FOR, and classrooms. Carbon monoxide detection shall be provided in dwelling units, sleeping units, ROOMS OF ANIMAL HOUSING OR CARE FACILITIES WHERE ANIMALS ARE HOUSED OR CARED FOR, and classrooms located in buildings that contain fuel burning appliances or fuel -burning fireplaces. Exceptions: 1. Carbon monoxide detection shall not be required in dwelling units, sleeping units, ROOMS OF ANIMAL HOUSING OR CARE FACILITIES WHERE ANIMALS ARE HOUSED OR CARED FOR, and classrooms where there are no communicating openings between the fuel -burning appliance or fuel -burning fireplace and the dwelling unit, sleeping unit, ROOM OF THE ANIMAL Page 22 of 291 HOUSING OR CARE FACILITY WHERE ANIMALS ARE HOUSED OR CARED FOR, or classroom. 2. Carbon monoxide detection shall not be required in dwelling units, sleeping units, ROOMS OF ANIMAL HOUSING OR CARE FACILITIES WHERE ANIMALS ARE HOUSED OR CARED FOR, and classrooms where carbon monoxide detection is provided in one of the following locations: 2.1. In an approved location between the fuel burning appliance or fuel -burning fireplace and the dwelling unit, sleeping unit, ROOM OF THE ANIMAL HOUSING OR CARE FACILITY WHERE ANIMALS ARE HOUSED OR CARED FOR, or classroom. 2.2. On the ceiling of the room containing the fuel -burning appliance or fuel -burning fireplace. 915.1.5 Private garages. Carbon monoxide detection shall be provided in dwelling units, sleeping units, ROOMS OF ANIMAL HOUSING OR CARE FACILITIES WHERE ANIMALS ARE HOUSED OR CARED FOR, and classrooms in buildings with attached private garages. Exceptions: 1. Carbon monoxide detection shall not be required where there are no communicating openings between the private garage and the dwelling unit, sleeping unit, ROOM OF THE ANIMAL HOUSING OR CARE FACILITY WHERE ANIMALS ARE HOUSED OR CARED FOR, or classroom. 2. Carbon monoxide detection shall not be required in dwelling units, sleeping units, ROOMS OF ANIMAL HOUSING OR CARE FACILITIES WHERE ANIMALS ARE HOUSED OR CARED FOR, and classrooms located more than one story above or below a private garage. 3. Carbon monoxide detection shall not be required where the private garage connects to the building through an open-ended corridor. 4. Where carbon monoxide detection is provided in an approved location between openings to a private garage and dwelling units, sleeping units, ROOMS OF ANIMAL HOUSING OR CARE FACILITIES WHERE ANIMALS ARE HOUSED OR CARED FOR, or classrooms, carbon monoxide detection shall not be required in the dwelling units, sleeping units, ROOMS OF ANIMAL HOUSING OR CARE FACILITIES WHERE ANIMALS ARE HOUSED OR CARED FOR, or classrooms. 915.1.6 Exempt garages. For determining compliance with Section 915.1.5, an open parking garage complying with Section 406.5 of the International Building Code or an enclosed parking garage complying with Section 406.6 of the International Building Code shall not be considered a private garage. To ensure that carbon monoxide issues do not compromise the health and safety of all occupants. FISCAL IMPACT The code change will have a fiscal impact that is correlated with the smoke/fire detection system. Page 23 of 291 CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL FORM Code: IFC - 2015 915.3 PROPONENT Georgetown Fire Department, City of Georgetown REVISION The Fire Code, Section 915.3, Detection Equipment, is hereby amended as follows: Commented [J522]: BSC supported as written Detection equipment. Carbon monoxide detection required by Sections 915.1 through 915.2.3 shall be provided by carbon monoxide alarms complying with Section 915.4 or carbon monoxide detection systems complying with Section 915.5. ELECTRONICALLY SUPERVISED CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTION SYSTEMS COMPLYING WITH SECTION 915.5 SHALL BE PROVIDED IN GROUP B FIRE AREAS CONTAINING AN ANIMAL HOUSING OR CARE FACILITY WHEN THE ANIMALS ARE NOT PROVIDED WITH CONSTANT SUPERVISION. REAS0N To ensure that carbon monoxide issues do not compromise the health and safety of all occupants. FISCAL IMPACT The code change will not have a material impact to costs or fees. Page 24 of 291 CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL FORM Code: IFC - 2015 1103.7.8 PROPONENT Georgetown Fire Department, City of Georgetown REVISION The Fire Code is hereby amended to include a new sub -section 1103.7.8 as follows: ANIMAL HOUSING OR CARE FACILITIES WITHO iT CONST NT S PERMS". AN ELECTRONICALLY SUPERVISED AUTOMATIC SMOKE DETECTION SYSTEM COMPLYING WITH SECTION 907.2.2.2 SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL FIRE AREAS CONTAINING AN EXISTING GROUP B ANIMAL HOUSING OR CARE FACILITYWITHOUT CONSTANT �SUPERVISIONk REASON To reduce the risk of life loss in existing animal housing or care facilities. FISCAL IMPACT The automatic smoke detection and/or heat detection is estimated to cost approximately $1.15 to $2.00/sq_ft and this equates a cost of $11,500.00 to $20,000.00 for a 10,000 sq ft building. More complex buildings, such as those divided into multiple rooms, could added significantly to the cost of these systems.; Alarm monitoring costs are estimated at $600 per year. Commented [JS23]: I'd also like us to consider requiring Class A finish requirements for existing facilities and provide up to 24-months for completion. The fire detection systems should be installed within 12-months of code adoption. Commented [JS24]: BSC supported with clarification regarding the facilities providing constant supervision Formatted: Font color: Red, Strikethrough Commented [CW25]: Just a suggested editorial change in location for the new wording. Formatted: Font color: Red Page 25 of 291 CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL FORM Code: IFC - 2015 1103.8 PROPONENT Georgetown Fire Department, City of Georgetown REVISION The Fire Code is hereby amended to add b new section 11086s follows: 1108 CONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING ANIMAL HOUSING OR CARE FACILITIES. 1108.1 1105.1 GENERAL. EXISTING GROUP B ANIMAL HOUSING OR CARE FACILITIES WITHOUT CONSTANT SUPERVISION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS. 1. THE FIRE ALARM REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 1103.7.8. 2. WALLS AND CEILINGS SHALL HAVE A CLASS A FINISH AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 803,, WHF-RE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS THAT APPLIED AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTIOON, THE MOST RESTRICTIVE PROVISIONS SHALL APPLY. 1108.2 TIME FRAME FOR COMPLIANCE. 1108.2.1 A PLAN FOR ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE SHALL BE DEVELOPED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE ADOPTION OF THESE PROVISION. 1108..2.2 INSTALLATION OF REQUIRED FIRE ALARMS SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN 12 CALENDAR MONTHS FOLLOWING ADOPTION OF THESE PROVISIONS. 11.8.2.3 WORK TO PROVIDE A CLASS A FINISH TO WALLS AND CEILINGS SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN 24 CALENDAR MONTHS FOLOWING ADOPTION OF THESE PROVISIONS. REASON To reduce the risk of life loss in existing animal housing or care facilities. FISCAL IMPACT Commented [JS26]: I'd also like us to consider requiring Class A finish requirements for existing facilities and provide up to 24-months for completion. The fire detection systems should be installed within 12-months of code adoption. Commented [JS27]: BSC supported with clarification regarding the facilities providing constant supervision F mented [JS28R27]: This new section was not ented to the BSC. Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Font: 11 pt Commented [CW29]: Just a suggested editorial change in location for the new wording. Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Font: 11 pt Page 26 of 291 As noted for, the proposed amendment for 1103.7.8, the automatic smoke detection and/or heat Formatted: Font: 11 pt detection is estimated to cost approximately $1.15 to $2.00/sq ft and this equates a cost of Formatted: Font: 11 pt $11,500.00 to $20,000.00 for a 10,000 sq ft building. More complex buildings, such as those divided into multiple rooms, could added significantly to the cost of these systems. Alarm monitoring costs are estimated at $600 per year. Where an existing facility already has gypsum wallboard wall finishes, 1108.2.3 will add no costs. Estimated material costs for adding gvpsum wallboard to a simple 10,000 sq ft building with 8-foot-tall top plates are estimated to range, from $3,000 to $3,500. Labor costs are likely to Formatted: Font: 11 pt be approximately equal to the materials costs (Total $6,000 to $7,000). There are many variables in this matter and costs can vary widely depending on demand for construction services. If the building has high walls/ceilings or is divided into numerous rooms, the amount of material and labor can increase dramatically (double, triple, or higher). It is also possible for the Class A rating to be obtained with spray on coatings which could be more cost effective. Page 27 of 291 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop January 25, 2022 SUBJECT: Presentation, discussion and possible direction regarding improvements to the development process as it relates to the requirements enacted through HB 3167, also known as the shot clock process -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director ITEM SUMMARY: Background: Texas House Bill 3167, dubbed the "shot clock" bill, went into effect on Sept. 1, 2019. The new legislation expanded on previous legislation requiring cities and counties to act on plat and plan applications within 30 calendar days to be inclusive of all subdivision related applications. Additionally, subsequent applications became subject to a 15-day review period. Plats and Plans that have not been acted on at the end of these timeframes must be automatically approved. Specific comments need to be cited for disapproval. The bill requires the municipal authority responsible for approving plats (P&Z) to take the following action on the plan or plat: (1) approve, (2) approve with conditions, or (3) disapprove with explanation. Proposed Changes: As part of this workshop staff is recommended the following steps to improve the development process and to address customer and staff feedback. Retain submittal schedule for intake of applications. Increase submittal days incrementally. Step 1 — Now. o Allow shot clock applications requesting a waiver to submit on intake days for land use only application days Step 2- After performance evaluation in 3-6months o Allow shot clock applications requesting a waiver to have weekly submittal days. Feedback Requested: Do you support proceeding forwarding with UDC updates to support the proposed updates outlined in this presentation? FINANCIAL IMPACT: n/a SUBMITTED BY: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director ATTACHMENTS: workshop presentation Page 28 of 291 Update on Development Process Improvements January 25,20221 Workshop Page 29 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S 3avelonment Review To;; 4� , .As GEORGETOWN T E X A ti 0 1 � r ' At V i H i more than welcome Q resentatmion Outline • Part 1 • Recap on H B 3167 • Part 2 • Current development process • Part 3 • Proposed process • Initial Feedback from • Development community • Internal development team • Part 4 • City Council direction Page 31 of 291 Feedback Requested • Do you support proceeding forwarding with UDC updates to support the proposed updates outlined in this presentation? Page 32 of 291 Recap of HB Page 33 of 291 I Recap- Minimum PP%At uirementfft • Texas House Bill 3167, dubbed the "shot clock" bill, went into effect on Sept. 1, 2019 • The new legislation expandedon previous legislation requiring cities and counties to act on plat applications within 30 calendar days to be inclusive of all subdivision related applications. Additionally, subsequent applications became subject to a 15-day review period. • Plats and Plans that have not been acted on at the end of these timeframes must be automatically approved. • Specific comments need to be cited for disapproval • The bill requires the municipal authority responsible for approving plats P&Z) to take the following action on the plan or plat: (1) approve, (2) approve with conditions, or (3) disapprove with explanation. Page 34 of 291 Recap- Alternatives • Alternative Process. • The new legislation provided for an alternative plan or plat approval procedure when an applicant elects approval for a plan or plat under an alternative approval process adopted by a city if the process allows for a shorter approval period. • Waiver of action time frames. • Cities may not request or require an applicant to waive a deadline or other approval procedure. • Waiver does not allow administrative approval. Page 35 of 291 Current Development Process Page 36 of 291 'N Changes made to meet 2019 requirements • Set application submittal calendar: • 1 new application date per month • 2 resubmittal dates per month • Established a detailed internal review process with internal deadlines. • All applicable applications were sent to P&Z for action on a consent agenda. • Development fees were increased to meet increase in processing time. • Abbreviated time frame and lack of flexibility given to the review process has forced staff to reject incomplete submittals, rather than engage in back -and -forth discussion to resolve minor comments. Page 37 of 291 Current Development Process 0 1 � 1 1—-------1�---------- T 30 days Total Process = minimum of 106 calendar days * when 4 rounds of review are necessary 0 0 5 days 0 15 days 0 0 15 days 0 Page 38 of 291 Proposed Ch Page 39 of 291 anaps �N Waiver a • Establish a waiver process applicants i can opt out of shot clock processing 1 st Rev times in lieu of pre -shot clock review time � . frames. i i Page 40 of 291 Submittal bf edule • Retain submittal schedule • Increase submittal days incrementally. • Step 1 — Now. • Allow shot clock applications requesting a waiver to submit on intake days for land use only application days • Step 2-After performance evaluation in 3-6months • Allow shot clock applications requesting a waiver to have weekly submittal days. Page 41 of 291 I Plat or Plan Submitted A& Completeness Upto5 business days 1st Review 20 work days 2nd Review 15 work days 3rd Review 10 work days All Comments Addressed Approval by PZ GEORGETOWN T E X A ti more than welcome 14 Minor Plats • Update UDC to allow Planning Director approval authority of: • Amending Plats • Minor plats or replats involving four or fewer lots fronting on an existing street and not requiring the creation of any new street or the extension of municipal facilities; or • A replat under Section 212.014IR that does not require the creation of any new street or the extension of municipal facilities. • Updated state law: • The Planning Director cannot disapprove the plat and shall route to P&Z within the time period specified if requirements of approval are not met. Page 43 of 291 Initial Feedback Page 44 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S Customer Fr%0%,0 4aci • Support for increased submittal opportunities • Surety is needed that if waivers are submitted that turnaround times are still met. • Opportunities for increased flexibility in the development process and clearing comments is desired. • More time to digest and discuss comments before going to P&Z for action • Opportunities for increased concurrent reviews is desired. Page 45 of 291 eedback • A desire to have more increased back and forth collaboration with applicants is desired. Current process does not allow for back and forth discussion to clear comments. • A set submittal schedule is necessary but it puts a lot of pressure on intake staff to intake all applications on a single day. Particularly when the amount of applications to be processed is an unknown quantity. • Increased organization and trackin� is necessary to ensure the right deadlines are met if there are two different deadlines for the same application type. • Evaluation of step 1 increased submittal days should be evaluated on a limited time and limited application type basis before going to a weekly submittal schedule. Page 46 of 291 City Council Direction Page 47 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S Feedback Requested • Do you support proceeding forwarding with UDC updates to support the proposed updates outlined in this presentation? Page 48 of 291 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop January 25, 2022 SUBJECT: Presentation and discussion regarding the proposed Final Draft of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan -- Kimberly Garret, Parks and Recreation Director; and Dan Seder, GreenPlay, LLC ITEM SUMMARY: The City Council approved a contract with GreenPlay, LLC, on March 23, 2021 to update the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Assisting GreenPlay with the project are the following sub contractors: Covey Planning and Landscape Architecture, Georgetown, TX; BRS Architecture; RRC Associates; and Bang the Table Online Engagement. The project team also includes members of staff and Katherine Kainer, Parks and Recreation Board Chair and Chad Holz, Parks and Recreation Board Vice Chair. The project kicked off in April 2021 followed by a series of stakeholder and public engagement sessions and a community survey. The consultants were also onsite in May to do an inventory analysis of our current park system. A findings presentation was presented on August 25, 2021. Early in the project, a website was created to keep the public informed and to house information related to the process including a way to sign up for updates and the schedule. The project website is gtxparkplan.com. The draft master plan was presented to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on November 8, 2021 and the City Council on November 9, 2021. This presentation will include the the final draft parks master plan including the process, key findings, recommendations and action steps. The final draft has been attached to this agenda item as well as the Executive Summary. PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board unanimously (7-0) recommended approval of the final draft master plan at their January 13, 2022. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Parks and Recreation Master Plan is one of the elements of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The first public hearing was held at the January 18, 2022, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. There was no one signed up to speak on the item. At the same meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously (5-0) voted to recommend the updated Parks and Recreation Master Plan become an element of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Below are the next steps in the adoption process: February 8, 2022 City Council - 2nd Public Hearing and 1 st Reading of the Ordinance February 22, 2022 City Council - 2nd Reading of the Ordinance FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director ATTACHMENTS: Presentation Page 49 of 291 Executive Summary Draft Master Plan Ch 1 Draft Master Plan Ch 2 Draft Master Plan Ch 3 Draft Master Plan Ch 4 Draft Master Plan Ch 5 Draft Master Plan Ch 6 Appendix A-F Page 50 of 291 ' ate V IOKGL 1 LOWN 11 J AIR Parks and im Recreation Master Plan City Council Final Presentation • Master Plan Process Review • Community Engagement Recap • Key Issues/Recommendations • Next Steps '291 I Master Plan Process 0A LI Page 53 of 291 Project Schedule Community Needs Assessment Survey Public Meeting: Draft Presentation Visioning Workshop with Project Team Park Inventory and Development of Level of Service Priorities and Analysis Page 54 of 291 Recommendations Public Meeting: Final Presentation Texas Parks and Wildlife Check -In [oil Ni�9�1 E iw__ •, • Strategic Kick -Off (SKO) • April 20, 2021- Via Zoom • Identify City Project Team and roles and responsibilities • Establish a project timeline • Create aVision for the plan • Identify success factors to guide and lead development of the plan • Determine City Project Team and roles and responsibilities • Review GreenPlay Online Mobile Optimized Engagement (MOE) guidelines • Project website: gtxparkplan.com • Community questionnaire • 232 completed the initial questionnaire • Continued communication/information dissemination throughout project • 2,783 site visits • 105 site registrations • 98 activated participants I Page 55 of 291 Commun*lty Summary Information Gathering- May 3-May 24, 2021 Findings Presentation • Indoor recreation staff input session Open public meetings o May 3 • Staff focus group sessions (3 groups) o May 12, 13, and 17 • Stakeholder input sessions (5 groups) o May 12, 13, 17, and 18 • One on one identified officials and community leader meetings (6-8 meetings) o May 14, 17, 18, 19, and 20 • Open public meetings (information gathering) o May 24 • Community questionnaire- gtxparkplan.com o 232 completed the initial questionnaire • Community Survey (random sample and open link) o June -July • August 25, 2021 Draft Presentation Open public meeting • November 9, 2021 Page 56 of 291 Community Survey Methodology Primary methods: 1 = Statistically Valid (Invitation Survey) Mailed postcard and survey with an option to complete online through password protected website 2 = Open Link Survey Online survey available to all residents of Georgetown 1,84 ostcards &Surveys Delivered :11M 491 -Invitation Surveys Completed +/- 4.4% Margin of Error 1,545 - Open Link Surveys Completed 7 Page 57 of 291 ® R R C Page 58 of 291 Information Gathering • 10 Executive staff interviews • Parks and recreation staff • Identified 60 stakeholders • 38 Focus Groups • Open Public Meeting • 139 registered • Approximately 66 attended • Community Questionnaire • 232 • Community Survey • 2,036 FindingsNisioninq Open Public Meeting Draft Presentation Open Public Meeting Project website:guparkplan.com • Continued communication/information dissemination throughout project • 2,783 site visits • 105 site registrations • 98 activated participants Key Issues and Recommendations Page 59 of 291 • Findings of the key issues that surfaced during the Master Plan process fell into one of five categories: • Organizational Effectiveness • Level of Service/Outdoor • Level of Service/Indoor Recreation • Programming • Financial • The consultant team, along with the City project team, performed an exercise to discuss each key issue and identify preliminary recommendations that then lead to the creation of the final recommendations and action plan. *0# Page 60 of 291 Recommendations: Drawn from the public input, inventory, level of service analysis, findings feedback, and all the information gathered during the master planning process with a primary focus on maintaining, sustaining, and improving Georgetown parks, recreation, open space, and trails. All cost estimates are in 2021 figures where applicable. Most costs are dependent on the extent of the enhancements and improvements determined or known at this time. Timeframe to complete is designated as: © High (1-3 years) Medium (4-6 years) Low (7-10 years) 00 Ongoing Page 61 of 291 *0# I • Organizational Effectiveness • Communication with residents • Duplication of services • Reach of services/programs to the public 7j *t I Page 62 of 291 Recommendations- Organizational Effectiveness Objective 1.1: Improve communication with residents Actions Priority 1.1.a Continue to expand efforts based on communication methods identified in the community survey. Solicit resident feedback on best method to communicate through registration O0 questionnaires, program evaluations, and other outreach efforts. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: N/A 1.1.b Develop community engagement opportunities to promote community/ neighborhood input on the development of programs, projects, parks, and other community related efforts. 00 Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: N/A Page 63 of 291 Key Issues- Level of Service/Outdoor • Level of Service/Outdoor • Desire for more trails and pathways • Access skate parks • Park/Trails Safety • Desire for community gardens • Access to aquatics/water opportunities • Need for additional parks and open space to improve walkability and access • Internal standards for parks and components • Implementation of standardize park classifications based on components and park services Page 64 of 291 Recommendations- Level of Service/Outdoor Park Scores by Classification Regional Neighborhood Pocket San Gabriel Park E 378 Rowan Park 40 Downtown Splash Pad M4 Garet' Park 0226 Emerald Springs Park 36 Fairfield Park 13 Booty's Road Park 1 26 San Jose Park And Splash Pad 36 Cedar Elm Park 9 Special Use Rabbit Hill Park and Splash Pad 34 Green Grove Park 9 McMaster Athletic Complex 182 Stillwater Park 34 Hanover Park 9 Tennis Center 0 127 Golden Bear Park 32 Spring Court Park 9 VFW Park 55 Lakeside Park 31 Adkins Park 7 Bark Park 12 Meadows Park 29 Chestnut Park 4 Heritage Gardens Park 10 La Conterra North Park 24 Shell Park 4 Community Old Town Park 24 Village Glen Park 4 Chautauqua Park Village Pool and Park 22 Westbury Park 4 Blue Hole Park M4 Woodlake Park 20 Rivery Park 034 Berry Creek Park 19 Chandler Park 29 Founders Park 19 Williams Drive Pool And Park 06,19 Creekside Park =8 Geneva Park W18 Katy Crossing Park W18 Madrone Park =17 Pinnacle Park =17 River Ridge Pool and Park M15 University Park M15 Edwards Park 12 Kelley Park 12 Summer Crest Park r 11 Summers Green Park F 9 Bedford Park 6 6 Raintree Park 1 6 WindridgeVHlag'eo ar 3 1 Recommendations- Level of Service/Outdoor Objective 2.2: Make park improvements to better serve Georgetown residents and in turn improving Neighborhood GRASP scores Actions Priority 2.2.b Improve low scoring parks in low scoring areas by adding amenities, replacing amenities, or adding other infrastructure elements as outlined in Appendix A (park recommendation table). See tables in following sections (parks in low scoring areas). Operational Budget Impact: TBD Capital Cost Estimate: See Appendix A Park Recommendations Table 41 Page 66 of 291 000 Recommendations- Level of Service/Outdoor Park Name Priority Park Improvements Park Class San Gabriel Park High Implement phase 3 master plan. Regional Park Bedford Park High Add picnic shelter, fitness course, Neighborhood Park playground looped trail Kade Damian High Implement plan for park in a Neighborhood Park Healing Hearts partnership with Playful Child Foundation Katy Crossing High Add internal sidewalk and BBQ Neighborhood Park Park grills. Pinnacle Park High Update playground Neighborhood Park University Park High Playground, accessibility, and Neighborhood Park shelter improvement completed this year. Bark Park High Create internal loop trails, add Special Use restroom, increase/improve parking Heritage High Improve connection to Hutto Road Special Use Gardens Park and Rifle Bend Drive. Consider 66bf Vbn internal loop path. Garey Park Medium Develop separate trail system Regional Park for mountain bikers, implement principles that reduce recreation conflict between horse trail riders. Rivery Park Medium Create trail connection from Community Park Country Club Road to future Kade Damian Healing Hearts Park and San Gabriel River Trail. Carlson Place Medium Construct trail access to Neighborhood Park Meadows Park for increased Park pedestrian mobility. Emerald Medium Add connection point to Buffalo Neighborhood Springs Park Springs Trail, create loop walk. Park Rabbit Hill Medium Extend looped trail into Neighborhood Park remaining undeveloped park Park land and add site furnishings San Jose Park Medium Add larger picnic shelter, loop Neighborhood and Splash trail and additional parking. Park Pad Improve connections to surrounding parks including Geneva Park and Heritage Garden. Summercrest Medium Update playground and add Neighborhood Park looped trail. Improve access Park from Candle Ridge Trail. Summers Medium Add picnic shelter, playground, Neighborhood Green Park loop walk Park Windridge Medium Add walking loop and picnic Neighborhood Village shelter Page 68 of291 Park Recommend ations- Leve I of Service/Outdoor Recommendations- Level of Service/Outdoor Objective 2.3: Address need for additional parks and open space to improve walkable level of service and general park access Actions Priority 2.3.a Acquire new parkland to meet population growth demands, starting with an acquisition for a community park in southeast Georgetown. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: $4 M Page 69 of 291 Recommendations- Level of Service/Outdoor Park Name Park Class Planning/Visioning Effort Westside Parkland Regional Park Update exiting master plan Identify long term improvement through planning Blue Hole Park Community Park process Crystal Knoll Park Neighborhood Park Conduct neighborhood programming session La Conterra Parkland Neighborhood Park Conduct neighborhood programming session Madison Oaks Park Neighborhood Park Conduct neighborhood programming session River Chase Park Neighborhood Park Conduct neighborhood programming session Vista Point Neighborhood Park Conduct neighborhood programming session Waypoint/Estra ya Neighborhood Park Conduct neighborhood programming session Westhaven Park Neighborhood Park Conduct neighborhood programming session Westhaven Linear Park Li e k Conduct neighborhood programming session Recommendations- Level of Service/Outdoor Objective 2.5: Address the desire for more trails and pathways Actions Priority 2.5.a Identify locations for future trailheads. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time OO Capital Cost Estimate: TBD 2.5.b Create standards and implement appropriate parking, lighting, signage, and other supporting facilities for current and new trailheads and trail access points. 00 Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: TBD 2.5.c Align trail system to facility type and responsible city entity for implementation. Operational Budget I �ftbfSWff Time 00 Capital Cost Estimate: TBD Georgetown Trails -Master Plan, 2021 Update Trail Segments OSouth Fork San Gabriel River Trail (Wolf Rancho Ga—y --ark., OBerry Creek Trail West :'hale 1 i (Berry Springs Park to Wes:side Park; OSoutheast Georgetown Utility Condor (.Kelly Dr- to 6fitchell Elementary Schocl.i ®Pecan Branch IGeorge:ewn High School to Berry Creek Trail) OSmith Branch South IFM 1461', to Jnivemty Ave ©San Gabriel River Trail East Phase 1 (.San Gabriel -lark to Smi: Branch) OSmith Branch North (University Ave. to Sand Gabriel Trail Eas:) ®Old Georgetown Rail Line I George:cvm Municipal Complex to Berry Creek Trail) ODry Berry Creek Trail North IBerry Creek Trail =ast to ; ouny Rd. 234;) Dry Berry Creek Trail East 10 ti-35 to Canty Road '41 i OSan Gabriel River Trail East Phase 2 11 (Smith Branch :c Berry Creek Trailh 12 Berry Creek Trails East (Berry Springs Park to San Gabriel River Trail) Berry Creek Trail West 'rase 2 13 VYv_tside'ark :c Cal V&bb Blvd ) 8Berry Creek Trail North 8 F onald Regan Blvd_ to ETJ) 5 West Connector Trail South (South Fork San Gabriel Trail to HWY 29) 16 West Connector TraiI Mid ILake Georgetewr Trail to Lgh-ing Ranch Road) 17 West Connector Trail North (Lake Georgetc%ri Trail to Canty Road M) 's=3X 14 d t . 705 do • r a 1 • . cal u b �' • •;. •' 9 / r 10 - • �.. ' • ' •�•' sun city • ; ''•..�ti ■ -4G N• New Cam Hill Theon 11.6 Trail Facilities Gty of Georgetown Shared Use Path, Existng Shared Use Path, Proposed ■ ■ ■ Sidepath, Existing Sidepath, Expansion Needed Sidepath, Proposed ■ ■ Bike lane, Proposed ....... , Sharrow. Proposed • 2 Williamson County . •� i . Shared Use Path, Existing _ t..' �•^ a ,vt'✓' "t r :� �;,` 7 US Army Core of Engineers 'C '•'�,; . - +.. ..� , ' '� f4. a�o�• — Shared Use Path, Existing . i�:•:•h `, ate•.+ r� ~ �.� Serenadai "' �• >•�F• •• •••••• Hike and Bike Trail. Existing 12 "•�• t •••uoni= a i •. '` •. �� Weir •LJ : : f•e•.1•. .•,% ,.♦ a Lake ����• 16' , • S : . �.. w ? • .• It 4b ,. ... .�•� Ca rgetot y , 15 G roy Faik r •7.►��. I •..•� .43 % •► •• •� :. {eA 0' 2243 !r •' 0 aop ' Page 72 of 291 f .� '46Q M GoN t�Arl S. taeC teas Key Issues- Level of Service/Indoor Recreation • Level of Service/Indoor Recreation • Need to renovate the current recreation center • Lack of current space, must address the demand for more space with projected future population growth • New westsidea,rq.greation center Recommendations - Level of Service/lndoor Recreation Objective 3.1: Renovate and expand the current recreation center and build a new recreation center to address the need for additional space to meet population growth and demand Actions Priority 3.1.a Complete a feasibility study to determine the following as called out in Appendix B Indoor Recreation Recommendations: • Renovation & expansion of the existing recreation center • Re -imagine all interior spaces for efficiency o Refresh aging facility with light renovations throughout • Perform heavy renovations/reimagined spaces to improve quality experiences • Improve recreation services offered by the recreation center • Build a new West side facility • Relocation of the existing Tennis facility to meet the Georgetown Level of Service • Identify appropriate location on west side (adjacent to major through fare) • Identify potential funding sources • Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time • Capital Cost Estimate: $75,000-$95,000 Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimat :' agee4 0 of 291 Key Issues- Programming • Programming • Expressed desire for environmental and educational/enrichment programming • Need for more after school and summer programs • Need for youth opportunities in Zone 4 r PARKLAND DEDICATION ZONES Page 75 of 291 Recommendations- Programming Objective 4.1: Continue to provide a robust menu of programs to meet community needs. Actions Priority 4.1.a Pursue options to increase programing in Park Dedication Area 4. Begin by addressing the need for youth programming identified in the community needs assessment survey. Consider potential partnership opportunities. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time, Budget TBD Capital Cost Estimate: N/A 4.1.b Review the need for additional afterschool programs and summer camps. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time P g p Capital Cost Estimate: N/A 4.1.c Develop scholarship program to increase availability and reduce barriers to access. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: N/A Page 76 of 291 40 40 Key Issues- Financial • Financial • Community growth will require additional funding and FTEs to provide the same standard of parks and recreation services • Cost recovery philosophy and policy • Potential need for bond referendum Page 77 of 291 Objective 5.1: Continue to provide a robust menu afprograms to meet community needs. Actions Priority 5.1.a Request annual FTE increases to keep pace with growth. The Department will need to add approximately 10 FTE in the next 5 years to maintain its current ,k level of service. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time, Budget TBD Capital Cost Estimate: N/A 5.2.b Request annual budget increases to keep pace with growth. The Department will need to add approximately 1.5M in the next 5 years to maintain its current level of service. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: N/A 5.2.c Implement a Cost Recovery Philosophy and Policy. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: N/A 5.2.d Pursue a bond referendum for funding special projects to maintain the Department's current level of parks and recreation services relative to the City's growth. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: N/A 5.2.e Elevate the operations of the Friends of Georgetown to support future fundraising and planning efforts for the Department. Park and recreation foundations are valuable partners for many local park and recreation agencies A strong and engaged foundation can provide expertise and support for fundraising, community engagement, and relationship building_ Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: N/A 5.1.f Consider the support identified in the community survey to increase funding through private/public partnerships in the form of sponsorship, advertising, and naming rights. Page 78 of 291 Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: N/A Recommendations- Financial Strategic Kick -Off • Critical Success Factors • Key focus areas • Meeting schedule • Identification of Key Stakeholders • Gathering of All Relevant Documents • Briefing with Decision Makers gig GREENRAYLa i. 1-ft f,, • tie .i._ .,. s- to.. *.+v Information • Needs Assessment • Jietf 1►/ • Stakeholders • Public Meetings • Focus groups • Interviews • Surveys • Online engagement • InveMory • All Assets • All Program locations • Other Providers • level of Service Analysis • GIS component -based mapping • Quality, Quantity. Functionality • Cominiveity Profib • Historical & Planning Context • Demographics . Trends MM& Findings w & Visioning • Presentation/Feedback Sessions • Staff • Stakeholders • Decision Makers • What We Have Discovered • Key Issues Matrix • Key Ideas and Themes for Improvement • Analysis • Programming • Operations • Maintenance • Marketing & Draft MEWL*-b Recommendations • Summary Findings • Strategies • long -Term Vision • �I•crt-TPrm Action • Implications • Financial • Operational • N!3101t 11f"A • Recommendations • Action Plan • Tasi<s I • Timing • Costs • Review & Revisions Typically our Strategic/Master Plans Include a 5-year focus on operations, 10-year focus on capital, and 20 year strategic vision. other elements and tools are added as needed for a community -specific plan. Master Plan Next Steps January 131n • Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Recommendation (7-0) January 18tn • Planning and Zoning Commission 1st Public Hearing and Recommendation (5-0) February 8tn • City Council 2nd Public Hearing and 1st Reading of Ordinance February 22nd • City Council 2nd Reading of Ordinance r ,.:' M4' • ' 0, M • .9 10 • • 'ratV _ a. � t , -1 now 6REENPLAYLC The Leading Edge In Parks, Recreation, And Open Space Consulting Dan Seder Project Manager • GreenPlay LLC dans@greenplayllc.com I Georgetown, Texas Parks and Recreation Master Plan (gtxparkplan.com) Kimberly Garrett Director of Parks and Recreation City of Georgetown r. 1 &0%109 I loss Page 81 of 291 v Vol c n Ib ��� •. • •. 4 t N4 ••� • Its • r VLO . aIL Page 83 of 291 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Mayor Josh Schroeder Council District 1—Amanda Parr Council District 2—Shawn Hood Council District 3 — Mike Triggs Council District 4 —Steve Fought Council District 5 — Kevin Pitts Council District 6 —Jake French Council District 7 — Tommy Gonzalez David Morgan, City Manager Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager Wayne Nero, Assistant City Manager Nick Woolery, Assistant City Manager Katherine Kainer, Chair Chad Holz, Co -Chair Lindsay Cooper, Secretary Brazos Fielder Jack P. Flatau Jolene Melancon Peter Bahrs Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director Eric Nuner, Parks and Recreation Assistant Director Robert Gaylor, Recreation Superintendent Traci Stengle, Recreation Superintendent Jamie Beran, Parks Superintendent Jill Kellum, Administrative Supervisor GreenPlay, LLC Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture (BRS) Covey Landscape Architects RRC Associates, LLC For more information about this document, contact GreenPlay, LLC At: 1021 E. South Boulder Road, Suite N, Louisville, Colorado 80027, Telephone: 303-439-8369 Email: info(@greenplayllc.com www.greenplayllc.com Page 84 of 291 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents......................................................................ii Table of Appendices..................................................................iii Table of Figures......................................................................iv Tableof Tables........................................................................v Executive Summary....................................................................1 A. Purpose of this Plan.................................................................1 B. Planning Process Summary............................................................1 C.Inventory Assessment Summary.......................................................2 D. Recommendations and Action Plans Summary Table......................................5 I. Purpose & Planning Process..........................................................17 A. Purpose of this Plan................................................................17 B. Department Overview...............................................................18 C. Methodology of this Planning Process..................................................19 II. Georgetown Today..................................................................25 A. Demographics .....................................................................25 B. Trends Relevant to Georgetown......................................................32 III. What We Have Now - Data Analysis...................................................43 A. Community Engagement............................................................43 IV. What We Have Now - Level of Service Analysis.........................................55 A. Parks and Facilities Inventory and Assessment...........................................55 B. Indoor Facilities Inventory and Assessment.............................................83 C.Programs Assessment...............................................................88 V.Key Issues & Priorities..............................................................97 VI. Recommendations and Action Plans ................................................ 101 A. Action Plan, Cost Estimates and Prioritization ......................................... 101 Parks and Recreation Wgqy2Vjan TABLE OF APPENDICES Appendices....................................................................... 112 Appendix A: Parks, Park Land, and Trails Recommendations ................................ 113 Appendix B: Indoor Recreation Assessment and Recommendations ......................... 124 Appendix C: Level of Service Analysis Methodology ...................................... 140 Appendix D: Trail Master Plan Map .................................................... 162 Appendix E: Trailhead and Access Points ............................................... 163 Appendix F: Trail Sections Exhibits ..................................................... 164 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 86 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome TABLE OF FIGURES to be completed Parks and Recreation §�gy2VJan TABLE OF TABLES to be completed Page 88 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome ta=i 4ow qm va'Aff 4i --� , I rmmpu6firr� jr-M k, vi A. Purpose of this Plan The purpose of the Master Plan is to anticipate the continued growth of the City and develop a 10-year update to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The plan will create a vision for the Department to act as a guide for the next 10 years and will consider the following Critical Success Factors: • Provide an assessment of indoor recreation facilities and programs. • Provide an updated assessment of parks, trails, and open space. • Be community driven. • Provide a clear and concise vision for the community, with creative recommendations for the implementation of the vision for the next ten (10) years. • Establish a clear direction to guide staff, the parks and recreation advisory board, and elected officials as to the growth, development and enhancement of the community's parks, public spaces, recreation programs, services, and facilities. • Become an element of the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan. • Create a cost recovery framework that is clear enough to allow decisions to be made by administrative decision makers. • Meet the Texas Parks and Wildlife Master Plan requirements. B. Planning Process Summary The process used in developing this master plan included the formation of an integrated project team that included select city staff, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, the consultant team of Green Play, Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture (BRS), Covey Planning and Landscape Architecture (Covey), and RRC Associates, as well as local city leadership, stakeholders, and the community. The City project team provided detailed input to the consultant team throughout the project. This process allowed for a collaborative approach to create a comprehensive plan that blends consultant expertise with the local knowledge of community members and stakeholders. The development of this plan included the following tasks: Strategic Kick Off April Data Collection and Review April Determination of Critical Success Factors April Community Engagement May - August 2021 Initial Information Gathering May Focus Groups/Staff and Stakeholder Interviews May Community Wide Public Meeting May Needs Assessment/Statistically Valid Survey June —July Evaluation of Current Level of Service May - August 2021 Parks and Facilities Inventory Assessment May —August Indoor Facilities Inventory and Assessment May —August Assessment of Existing Standards May —August Demographics, Trends, and Community Profile June — August Program Assessment June — August Financial Analysis June — August Benchmarking Analysis July — August Organizational Assessment Plan July —August OctoberAction/implementation August — Findings Presentation August Visioning Workshop August Action Plan/Recommendations August — October Draft and Final Plans, Presentations, and Deliverables October Draft Plan Presentation November Final Plan Presentation January IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Page 90 of 291 GEORGETOWN Texas more than welcome C. Inventory Assessment Summary Parks and Facilities Inventory Summary Georgetown has 53 developed parks with over 300 components. The system also includes some properties that are currently undeveloped but maintained by the department. Park Quantity Acres Neighborhood Parks 29 98.3 Community Parks 4 128 Regional Parks 2 703 Special Use 5 95 Pocket Parks 13 4.2 Developed Acres 1081 Undeveloped Acres 318 Total Acres 1399 Approximately 83 miles of trails are offered in and around the Georgetown area by several providers such as the City, United State Army Corp or Engineers (USACE), Williamson County, Wolf Ranch, and Sun City. f \y Goll ilnh ) c Sun City - ,mow �1 / UsACE wnhamaon county / ♦ k` r c,oa� c / Sun city / \ - Serenade )a� J 41— N ,e4.ra •„e'�Y Cimarron Hnh o e ` _� i )Orgetown \ 1L , r stidnwcanrn `m •``jZr—`r_- - � `I� � �\ J \ \ ` S Parks and Recreation W§tqy2Vjan Outdoor Level of Service Summary • Overall, parks are in good condition and well maintained • Signage consistent across the system • Some access and ADA issues • For example, plastic curb walls at playgrounds limit access • Turf conditions vary • Limited or no open used diamonds or rectangles in the system • Many undeveloped or underdeveloped properties limit the level of service in some areas • Limited walkable access across the system Other recreation providers include Williamson County, Army Corps of Engineers, homeowners' associations, private golf courses, the Georgetown Independent School District, the YMCA, and area churches. Except for the other public entities, the degree of availability and access to these facilities is membership or association restricted. Newer master -planned subdivisions in the Georgetown area have of late increased the scale and offerings of their residential community amenities. However, these amenity facilities are not extensive and would be considered a supplement to a neighborhood park. Level of service analysis shows that approximately 55% of residents have access to a recreation opportunity within a 10-minute walk of their home. Twenty-three percent of those residents live in an area at or above the target level of service. When considering that residents may bike or drive to parks more frequently, less than 20% live outside a 1-mile service area. Almost 60% of residents live in a region at or above the target score. One way to increase service to residents in lower -scoring regions is to improve parks and components in those areas. Raintree Park, Meadows Park, Katy Crossing Park, and Heritage Gardens are examples of parks in areas needing additional recreation opportunities. When comparing Georgetown to other agencies and parks in the dataset, four parks score in the top ten percent of all parks in the overall GRASP° score. Three of those four parks are in the top 100 parks overall. Additional findings in these comparisons reveal that Georgetown is above the average of other similar -sized agencies in total locations, parks per capita, and components per capita. A forecast of significant population increase will require Georgetown to add developed parks, parklands, and many components to maintain its current level of service. These may be currently undeveloped park properties or future land acquisitions. Georgetown can add features to existing parks, while some areas of the City will need newly developed parklands. Indoor Facilities Inventory and Assessment The Georgetown Recreation Center was built in 1995, with an expansion completed in 2009. The facility provides indoor recreation programming to the residents of the City. The Department also operate the Georgetown Tennis Center, a registered TIA Tennis Welcome Center and a U.S.T.A. 10 & Under Approved Facility. In addition to the city operated facilities, there are other private and public fitness services providers in the city. The Georgetown Independent School District has some schools that allow the Department to provide special programming and Sun City, an age restricted master planned development, provides numerous amenities available to its residents and guest. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 92 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome Indoor Level of Service Summary • The indoor recreation market is strong in the Georgetown service area and supports the existing recreation center with room to grow more offerings and more facilities. • The existing level of service is changing rapidly due to increase in population. • The existing facility is well maintained and is in average physical condition for its age. • The existing facility appearance inside and outside is becoming outdated. • Existing recreation center is a candidate for renovation and expansion to contribute to the indoor recreation system wide demands. • Georgetown indoor recreation level of service demands indicate there is a gap in the system that will likely exceed the existing recreation center program supply. • Public input indicates that a new recreation center is needed with the following main components: • Gymnasium amenities are the most important for a new indoor recreation center. • Other top amenities are fitness areas with weights and cardio equipment and group exercise rooms. • Best practices call for a new multi -generational recreation center to balance the system wide needs and provide year-round services to seniors. Key Issues Summary The following list is a summary of key issues identified through public input and information gathering, compiled into five categories as opportunities for the Department. Organizational Effectiveness • Communication with residents • Duplication of services • Reach of services/programs to the public Level of Service/Outdoor • Implementation of standardize park classifications based on components and park services • Need for additional parks and open space to improve walkability and access • Internal standards for parks and components • Desire for more trails and pathways • Access skate parks • Park/trails safety • Desire for community gardens • Access to aquatics/water opportunities Level of Service/Indoor Recreation • Need to renovate the current recreation center • Consider new recreation center to address the need for additional space to meet population growth and demand Parks and Recreation §�gy2VJan Programming Expressed desire for environmental and educational/enrichment programming Need for more after school and summer programs Need for youth opportunities in Zone 4 Financial • Community growth will require additional funding and FTEs to provide a similar level of service to what the community currently receives. D. Recommendations and Action Plans Summary Table The following Goals, Objectives, and Action Items for the recommendations are drawn from the public input, inventory, level of service analysis, findings feedback, and all the information gathered during the master planning process with a primary focus on maintaining, sustaining, and improving Georgetown parks, recreation, open space, and trails. All cost estimates are in 2021 figures where applicable. Most costs are dependent on the extent of the enhancements and improvements determined or known at this time. Timeframe to complete is designated as: • Ongoing (yearly review/evaluation) • High (up to 3 years) o Identifies very high priority to be completed within first year or 0-1 years. • Medium (4-6 years) • Low (7-10 years) © Super High (1-3 years) © Medium (4-6 years) ® Low (7-10 years) 00 Ongoing IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Page 94 of 291 GEORGETOWN Texns more than welcome Goal #1: Maintain Organizational Effectiveness Objective 1.1: Improve communication with residents Actions Priority 1.1.a Continue to expand efforts based on communication methods identified in the community survey. Solicit resident feedback on best method to communicate through registration O0 questionnaires, program evaluations, and other outreach efforts. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: N/A 1.1.16 Develop community engagement opportunities to promote community/ neighborhood input on the development of programs, projects, parks, and other community related efforts. 00 Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: N/A Objective 1.2: Avoid duplication of services Actions Priority 1.2.a Maintain and strengthen relationships with other providers including schools, County, and other public and private providers. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: N/A 1.2.b Conduct bi-annual Community Opportunities Assessment to evaluate if there is another provider of a program that is more suitable to offer it. Partner or divest from services when appropriate. 00 Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: N/A Parks and Recreation §�gy2VJan Objective 1.3: Improve reach of services/programs to the public Actions Priority 1.3.a Identify partnerships with other organizations to address the need of providing additional indoor and outdoor space for programming in the community. 00 Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: N/A Goal #2: Level of Service/Outdoor *Specific recommendations are identified in Appendix A: Parks, park land, and trails recommendations Objective 2.1: Continue to evaluate and standardize park classifications based on components and park service - Consider realigning parks to updated classifications Actions Priority 2.1.a Reclassify identified parks to better align with similar parks, as identified in Appendix A. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: N/A Objective 2.2: Make park improvements to better serve Georgetown residents and in turn improving Neighborhood GRASP scores Actions Priority 2.2.a Identify and capture a complete GIS inventory for alternative provider parks such as parks in Sun City and various HOA's across the city to help determine the percentage of additional population that has walkable access and avoid duplication of services. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time O0 Capital Cost Estimate: N/A Page 96 of 291 A-- GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome Objective 2.2: Make park improvements to better serve Georgetown residents and in turn improving Neighborhood GRASP scores Actions Priority 2.2.b Improve low scoring parks in low scoring areas by adding amenities, replacing amenities, or adding other infrastructure elements as outlined in Appendix A (park recommendation table). See tables in following sections (parks in low scoring areas). Operational Budget Impact: TBD Capital Cost Estimate: See Appendix A Park Recommendations Table 2.2.c Create and document department standards for typical park components and amenities such as playground curb walls, shelters, park benches, picnic tables, BBQ grills, signage, and wayfinding. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time 00 Capital Cost Estimate: N/A 2.2.d Perform an annual park audit and inventory update using GRASP GIS data as starting point. 10 Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time 00 Capital Cost Estimate: N/A 2.2.e Prioritize CIP and deferred maintenance based on annual identification of low scoring components. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time 00 Capital Cost Estimate: Vary by Location refer to Appendix C for list 2.2.f Continue to improve and update ADA access throughout park system including adding new park paths to park components. 00 Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: N/A Parks and Recreation §�ejyjan Objective 2.3: Address need for additional parks and open space to improve walkable level of service and general park access Actions Priority 2.3.a Acquire new parkland to meet population growth demands, starting with an acquisition for a community park in southeast Georgetown. �JC© Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: $4 M 2.3.b Promote conservation practices to maintain linear parks and open space. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: N/A 2.3.c Coordinate planning and visioning efforts for undeveloped parkland based on the input from area residents. Refer to Appendix A for list of parks names, park class, and planning and visioning effort. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: N/A Page 98 of 291 A-- GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome Objective 2.4: Address need for additional parks and open space to improve walkable level of service and general park access Actions Priority 2.4.a Create and document department standards for typical park components and amenities such as playground curb walls, shelters, park benches, picnic tables, BBQ grills, signage, and wayfinding. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time 00 Capital Cost Estimate: $4 M 2.4.b Perform an annual park audit and inventory update using GRASP GIS data as starting point. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time 00 Capital Cost Estimate: N/A 2.4.c Prioritize CIP and deferred maintenance based on annual identification of low scoring components. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time O0 Capital Cost Estimate: Vary by Location refer to Appendix A for list 2.4.d Continue to improve and update ADA access throughout park system including adding new park paths to park components. 00 Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: TBD Parks and Recreation §4er Plan Objective 2.5: Address the desire for more trails and pathways Actions Priority 2.5.a Identify locations for future trailheads. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time 00 Capital Cost Estimate: TBD 2.5.b Create standards and implement appropriate parking, lighting, signage, and other supporting facilities for current and new trailheads and trail access points. 00 Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: TBD Align trail system to facility type and responsible city entity for implementation. Align Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time O0 Capital Cost Estimate: TBD 2.5.d Consider amendment to UDC to require connection to the City's trail system for abutting subdivisions. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: TBD 2.5.e Connect neighborhood parks and other parks to trail systems where appropriate and as funding is available (Appendix A Trail Maps). 00 Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: See Appendix A Trail Segment List Objective 2.6: Address the desire for more trails and pathways Actions Priority 2.6.a Improve opportunities to access skate parks Operational Budget Impact: TBD Capital Cost Estimate: TBD Page 100 of 291 A-- GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome Objective 2.7: Increase park usage by improving safety and other corrective measures Actions Priority 2.7.a Create a work order system to better track maintenance issues and schedules. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: $4 M 2.7.b Identify areas for increased attention towards pedestrian safety, work with other city departments and TxDOT to make necessary improvements. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: N/A 2.7.c Add additional lighting in parks where necessary and other park improvements to promote a safe and welcoming environment (Zones 3 and 4 identified in community survey). Operational Budget Impact: Tbd Capital Cost Estimate: N/A Objective 2.8: Address the desire for community gardens Actions Priority 2.8.a Complete planned improvements at Heritage Gardens and include community plots. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: $250,000 2.8.b Add additional community gardens as demand dictates. Operational Budget Impact: TBD Capital Cost Estimate: TBD *based on location Parks and Recreation i §6qf&n Objective 2.9: Improve access to aquatics/water opportunities Actions Priority 2.9.a Construct outdoor aquatics to include sprayground/interactive fountain/plaza as part of Phase Three of the San Gabriel Park improvements.© Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: $250,000 2.9.b Add spray pads in neighborhoods that lack current water access. Operational Budget Impact: TBD Capital Cost Estimate: TBD *based on location Goal #3: Level of Service/Indoor Recreation *Specific recommendations are identified in Appendix B: Indoor recreation assessment and recommendations Objective 3.1: Renovate and expand the current recreation center and build a new recreation center to address the need for additional space to meet population growth and demand Actions Priority 3.1.a Complete a feasibility study to determine the following as called out in Appendix B Indoor Recreation Recommendations: • Renovation & expansion of the existing recreation center c Re -imagine all interior spaces for efficiency Refresh aging facility with light renovations throughout Perform heavy renovations/reimagined spaces to improve quality experiences c Improve recreation services offered by the recreation center • Build a new West side facility • Relocation of the existing Tennis facility to meet the Georgetown Level of Service • Identify appropriate location on west side (adjacent to major through fare) • Identify potential funding sources • Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time • Capital Cost Estimate: $75,000-$95,000 Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: N/A Page 102 of 291 A-- GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome Goal #4: Programming Objective 4.1: Continue to provide a robust menu of programs to meet community needs. Actions Priority 4.1.a Pursue options to increase programing in Park Dedication Area 4. Begin by addressing the need for youth programming identified in the community needs assessment survey. Consider potential partnership opportunities. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time, Budget TBD Capital Cost Estimate: N/A 4.1.b Review the need for additional afterschool programs and summer camps. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: N/A 4.1.c Develop scholarship program to increase availability and reduce barriers to access. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: N/A 4.1.d Review the success of current program offerings using a set criteria to determine if changes should be made including eliminating or suspending existing programs. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: N/A 4.1.e Identify opportunities to increase environmental and enrichment program offerings to the community. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: N/A Parks and Recreation W§Agfp4p Goal #5: Financial Objective 5.1: Continue to provide a robust menu of programs to meet community needs. Actions Priority 5.1.a Request annual FTE increases to keep pace with growth. The Department will need to add approximately 10 FTE in the next 5 years to maintain its current© level of service. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time, Budget TBD Capital Cost Estimate: N/A 5.2.b Request annual budget increases to keep pace with growth. The Department will need to add approximately 1.5M in the next 5 years to maintain its current level of service. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: N/A 5.2.c Implement a Cost Recovery Philosophy and Policy. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: N/A 5.2.d Pursue a bond referendum for funding special projects to maintain the Department's current level of parks and recreation services relative to the City's growth. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: N/A 5.2.e Elevate the operations of the Friends of Georgetown to support future fundraising and planning efforts for the Department. Park and recreation foundations are valuable partners for many local park and recreation agencies. A strong and engaged foundation can provide expertise and support for fundraising, community engagement, and relationship building. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: N/A 5.1.f Consider the support identified in the community survey to increase funding through private/public partnerships in the form of sponsorship, advertising, and naming rights. Operational Budget Impact: Staff Time Capital Cost Estimate: N/A Page 104 of 291 A-- GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Parks and Recreation W§Agfp4p A. Purpose of this Plan Georgetown is located on Interstate 35, the major corridor between Dallas and San Antonio, at the intersection of State Highway 130. The City, home of the Most Beautiful Town Square in Texas, was founded in 1848 with a strong agricultural base, in the heart of Williamson County, 26 miles north of Austin. Georgetown has an estimated population of 74,198 within the city limits, with an estimated population of 93,961 within the extra -territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) and serves as the county seat of Williamson County. Since 2008, the City's population has grown by 40 percent and the city limits have expanded from 50 sq. miles in 2010 to 59 sq. miles in 2021. Georgetown's economic development initiatives to expand jobs and tax base have been with a careful focus of maintaining and expanding its status as a signature destination. The award -winning historic downtown square, along with its extensive, award -winning parks and river trail systems along the North and South San Gabriel Rivers and Lake Georgetown have been leveraged to make the City one of the most attractive places to live and work. This unique character and small-town charm was a key factor for Del Webb Corporation when it built its first Texas development in Georgetown with the 1995 opening of Sun City, Texas. Today, over 7,200 homes with over 13,500 retirees make Sun City and Georgetown their home. Georgetown is also home to Southwestern University, which continues to receive national recognition. With more than 1,528 students and over 500 employees, the University provides substantial economic and cultural contributions to Georgetown. The purpose of the Master Plan is to anticipate the continued growth of the City and develop a 10-year update to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The plan will create a vision for the Department to act as a guide for the next 10 years and will consider the following Critical Success Factors: • Provide an assessment of indoor recreation facilities and programs. • Provide an updated assessment of parks, trails, and open space. • Be community driven. • Provide a clear and concise vision for the community, with creative recommendations for the implementation of the vision for the next ten (10) years. • Establish a clear direction to guide staff, the parks and recreation advisory board, and elected officials as to the growth, development and enhancement of the community's parks, public spaces, recreation programs, services, and facilities. • Become an element of the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan. • Create a cost recovery framework that is clear enough to allow decisions to be made by administrative decision makers. • Meet the Texas Parks and Wildlife Master Plan requirements. The plan will acknowledge the history and character of the community and address indoor and outdoor facilities, to position Georgetown to build on the unique system, and position the Department for new opportunities. The plan will also consider the requirements of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Park, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan Guidelines for their Local Park Grants Program. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 106 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome B. Department Overview The Georgetown Parks and Recreation Department is the principal provider of recreation and park facilities and programs for the City of Georgetown. More specifically, the mission of the Recreation Department is "to create an environment that provides opportunities for positive experiences and personal growth" and the mission of the Parks Department is "to take pride in creating and preserving outdoor spaces for the enjoyment of everyone". The Department operates and maintains over 50 developed parks throughout the City that range from large regional parks to small neighborhood pocket parks. Diverse recreation opportunities are available, including baseball and softball diamonds, rectangle fields, tennis and pickleball courts, playgrounds, and much more. Users also have access to over 80 miles of trails, including almost 20 miles owned and maintained by the Department. A variety of recreational opportunities exist for youth and adults in the areas of athletics, aquatics, instructional programs, special events, and senior adult activities. The Department partners with a variety of other organizations to maximize their resources and further expand recreation opportunities throughout Georgetown. The most recent Parks and Recreation Master Plan was completed in 2008 and adopted in 2009. In November 2008, Georgetown voters approved a referendum authorizing the City to issue $35 million in general obligation bonds to improve the existing park system through the acquisition of parkland, the construction of new parks and facilities, and the renovation and improvement of existing parks. Approximately 90 acres have been acquired for a future park on the west -side of Georgetown. Renovations to San Gabriel Park have been ongoing since 2016, Garey Park, a 525-acre park, was developed and opened in 2018, and hike and bike trail expansions have occurred. In addition, there has been new neighborhood park development and redevelopment of existing neighborhood parks. The VFW girls fast pitch softball complex was renovated in 2017. Renovations and improvements to existing parks have been ongoing for the past few years. Each year the city adopts a capital improvement program to continue improvements to the parks. The City updated its 2030 Comprehensive Plan in March 2020. Other plans that have recently been adopted include the Sidewalk Master Plan, Convention and Visitor Bureau's Tourism Strategic Plan, and the Bicycle Master Plan. In addition, the City's Parkland Dedication Ordinance was recently updated in July 2019 to include a park development fee in addition to land dedication. Beginning in fiscal year 2017, the City of Georgetown embarked on an expansion of the Performance Management Program (PMP) to further integrate the City Council and City Manager's strategic planning operations. The PMP is based upon a department's mission in a manner that aligns with the City's Vision and reinforces the City's Core Values. The program is used as a tool that aids in monitoring productivity and performance, while identifying trends and patterns to understand when a service area is strained or operating at peak performance. In addition, the Department has created business plans that align with goals, strategies, and performance measures. The Department has been the recipient of the Texas Recreation and Parks Society Gold Medal Award numerous times, the most recent in 2017. In addition, the Department won NRPA's National Gold Medal Award in 1999. Parks and Recreation W§Agfp4p C. Methodology of this Planning Process The process used in developing this master plan included the formation of an integrated project team that included select city staff, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, the consultant team of Green Play, Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture (BRS), Covey Planning and Landscape Architecture (Covey), and RRC Associates, as well as local city leadership, stakeholders, and the community. The City project team provided detailed input to the consultant team throughout the project. This process allowed for a collaborative approach to create a comprehensive plan that blends consultant expertise with the local knowledge of community members and stakeholders. The development of this plan included the following tasks which are more fully outlined in the following sections: • Project Coordination • Document Collection and Review • Community Engagement • Evaluation of Current Level of Service (LOS) • Benchmarking and Comparison of Resources • Demand/Needs Analysis • Recommendations: Goals, Objectives, and Action Plan Project Coordination • Initial Strategic Kickoff Meeting April 20, 2021 • Identify City Project Team and roles and responsibilities • Establish a project timeline • Create a Vision for the plan • Identify success factors to guide and lead development of the plan • Determine City Project Team and roles and responsibilities • Review GreenPlay Online Mobile Optimized Engagement (MOE) guidelines Data Collection and Analysis The consultant team assessed the various demographic characteristics and recreational habits and characteristics of residents and determined how existing park areas, programming, and services can be modified to better meet the needs of city residents. A gap analysis was completed to identify under - served areas of the community with respect to parks, programs, and services. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Page 108 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome The Department provided the consultant team with current demographic data on the geography and population specific to Georgetown including projected growth figures for the stated time period of the plan. An inventory of parks, recreation facilities, and programs offered by the Department, as well as other public and not -for -profit providers within Georgetown were submitted to the consultants. In addition, the Department provided the consultant team the following documents for review: • Facility inventory • Parks inventory • Trails map • Programs • Other service providers • Department operations • Department budget • Policies and procedures • Organizational chart • Comparative agency Master Plans • Intergovernmental agreements • Previous planning efforts, including: 2008 Parks, Recreation and Trails Master Plan 2030 City Comprehensive Plan 2018 Georgetown Online Citizen Survey Georgetown Westside Park Preliminary Master Plan San Gabriel Parks Master Plan 2015 Southwest Regional Trail Development Parks and Recreation W§Agfp4p Community Engagement In coordination with City staff, the consultant team designed and conducted a well -publicized public involvement process using various forums and media to reach and engage Georgetown citizens throughout the progress of the project. A project website was also developed, gtxparkplan.com, to keep residents informed and engaged. The following engagement methods were used throughout the project: Information Gathering • Project website: gtxparkplan.com o Community questionnaire • Indoor recreation staff input session o May 3, 2021 • Staff focus group sessions (3 groups) o May 12, 13, 17, 2021 • Stakeholder input sessions (5 groups) o May 12, 13, 17, 18, 2021 • One on one identified officials and community leader meetings (6-8 meetings) o May 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 2021 • Open public meetings (information gathering) May 24, 2021 • Community Survey (random sample and open link) Findings Presentation • Open public meetings August 25, 2021 Draft Presentation • Parks and Recreation Advisory Board presentation November 8, 2021 • City Council update and presentation November 9, 2021 Final Presentation • City Council presentation January 25, 2022 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 110 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome Evaluation of Current Level of Service (LOS) The consultant team evaluated and analyzed the current level of service provided by the Department including parks and recreation facilities owned, leased, and operated by the City, open space and trails and all services and programs including administration, park maintenance, athletics, aquatics, and recreation programming. This evaluation includes both outdoor and indoor facilities. The evaluation consisted of: • Analysis of current recreation facilities and parks to determine opportunities for improvement • Analysis of future development and expansion opportunities for each park including property currently held by the City for open space and future parks • Evaluation of current park and recreation facility usage trends • Evaluation of the City's current recreation and parks budget, staffing, and park maintenance operations • Evaluation and analysis of existing programs, both outdoor and indoor Benchmarking and Comparison of Resources The consultant provided a benchmark comparison of existing parks, facilities, and programs assessing the Department's ability to provide recreation opportunities to the existing and future residents of the City in comparison to the appropriate national standards (NRPA Park Metrics) and public recreation and parks departments in communities of similar size and demographics. The consultant team also considered emerging trends and best practices that may impact the Department's ability to provide recreation opportunities in the future. The following were the minimum requirements: • Parkland acres per capita • Recommended number of recreation facilities including indoor and outdoor facilities • Open Space acres • Recreation and sports programs and services • Usage patterns • Overall budgets and staffing levels Parks and Recreation §tgf.V44 n Demand/Needs Analysis Based on an analysis of the demographic information, the evaluation of the current level of service and outcomes of the public involvement process, the consultant prepared a needs assessment specific to Georgetown. This data will provide the basis for determining the priorities and needs of the City over the next ten years. The analysis specifically addresses the following: • Determine how well park acreage is spread throughout the system • Determine if enough amenities through needs assessment and gap analysis are available to meet the needs of the community • Determine trails and greenbelt land acquisition and development needs • Determine facility needs for additional indoor recreation at existing facilities and new facilities • Provide a clear plan for development of programming direction based on standards and demand analysis • Provide recommendation for the best possible provider and potential partnerships Recommendations: Goals, Objectives, and Action Plan The consultant team developed and/or refined a set of prioritized recommendations including a proposed timeline and costs related to each of the following: • Renovation, improvement or expansion of existing parks and recreation facilities • Acquisition and development of new parks and recreation facilities • Acquisition of land for new parks, facilities, and open space • Development of trail system(s), seeking connectivity and opportunities • Best practices and innovative strategies for improvements to operations and organization • Identify funding sources and/or potential ballot initiatives that would be supported by the community for future capital needs I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 112 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Parks and Recreation W§tgfp4p A. Demographics The City of Georgetown demographic profile was developed to provide an analysis of household and economic data in the area, helping to understand the type of park and recreation components that may best serve the community. GreenPlay worked with the City of Georgetown Planning Department to identify the best source for population data and estimates. The Planning Department utilizes its own methodology for generating estimates within city limits that are based on U.S. Census population counts, combined with new residential building permits and household size. It was determined that utilizing Esri Business Analyst would provide similar estimates for 2021 and, in combination with other data points, would provide the most comprehensive look at the City for the purposes of this study. Data referenced throughout this report was primarily sourced from Esri Business Analyst as of September 2021. In addition, when applicable, other sources were referenced such as the American Community Survey and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's County Health Rankings for data related to health outcomes. Population The City of Georgetown has experienced rapid growth in the past two decades. From a population of just over 30,378 in 2000, the City of Georgetown had added over 40,000 new residents over the past two decades. In 2021, the population in Georgetown was estimated at 74,198 — with an anticipated 3.26% compound annual growth rate between 2021 and 2026. If this growth rate continues, the population could reach 87,094 or more in 2026. Figure 1: Projected Population Growth in the City of Georgetown, 2000 - 2026 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 47,934 30,378 74,198 87,094 2000 Total Population 2010Total Population 2021 Total Population 2026 Total Population Source: Esri Business Analyst I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 114 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome Esri Business Analyst offers a deeper understanding of the community through a tool called Tapestry Market Segmentation. This analysis provides an accurate, comprehensive profile of US consumers based on socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. There are typically several dominant tapestry segments in each community. In Georgetown, this group is known as the Elders — which makes up 18.6% of the population — and is considered the oldest Tapestry market. This group is predominantly retirees, typically not in the workforce, who are sociable seniors. They are involved in clubs and organizations, and enjoy reading, watching TV, and being involved in their communities. There are two other groups that make up a large segment of the population — Silver and Gold (typically wealthy, educated seniors) and Up & Coming Families (growing families in the workforce). Age According to Esri Business Analyst, the median age in the City of Georgetown was 45.1 years old in 2020, older than the State of Texas (35.3) and the United States (38.8). The median age is projected to increase to 45.4 in the city by 2026. The age distribution in the City of Georgetown in 2021 is reflective of older adults. Approximately 34% of the population was over 60 years old in Georgetown — more than the State of Texas and the United States. In addition, the State and National comparisons demonstrate that the city has a higher percentage of those in their sixties, as seen in Figure 2. Figure 2: Age Distribution in Georgetown Compared to Texas, United States 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 10- 15- 20- 25- 30- 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- 60- 65- 70- 75- 80 0 4 5 9 85+ 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 74 79 84 ■ Georgetown 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 7% 8% 6% 4% 3% ■Texas 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 8% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 4% 2% 1% 1% ■ United States 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 7% 6% 6% 5% 3% 2% 2% ■ Georgetown Texas United States Source: Esri Business Analyst Parks and Recreation W§tqfp4p Table 1 below demonstrates the change in age groups amongst residents. From 2020 to 2021, those between the ages of 60 to 69 had an overall decrease in population, while those between 70 and 79 years old experienced more growth - as the community aged in place. Table 1: Age Group Distribution from 2010 to 2021 Age Group 2010 2021 Age 0-4 5.7% 5.3% Age 5-9 5.9% 5.5% Age 10-14 5.9% 5.8% Age 15-19 6.3% 5.9% Age 20-24 6.0% 5.9% Age 25-29 5.0% 5.7% Age 30-34 5.2% 5.4% Age 35-39 5.4% 5.3% Age 40-44 5.5% 5.2% Age 45-49 5.6% 5.1% Age 50-54 5.3% 5.2% Age 55-59 5.5% 5.7% Age 60-64 7.1% 6.4% Age 65-69 8.0% 7.3% Age 70-74 6.7 % 7.9 % Age 75-79 4.9% 5.7% Age 80-84 2.2% 2.2% Age 85+ 2.4% 2.6% Source: Esri Business Analyst Diversity in Georgetown Understanding the race and ethnic character of Georgetown residents is important because it is reflective of the diverse history, values, and heritage of the community. This type of information can assist the City in creating and offering recreational programs that are relevant and meaningful to residents. In addition, this type of data when combined with the Level of Service analysis can be used in finding gaps and disparities when it comes to equitable access to parks. Based on historical data, the City is increasingly becoming more diverse over time. In 2010, 21.58% of the population identified as Hispanic. This percentage increased to 29.03% in 2021- compared to 40.33% in the State of Texas, and 18.92% in the United States. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 116 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome Figure 3: Race Comparison for Total Population in Georgetown Source: Esri Business Analyst, 2020 : A Responsibility to Racial Equity ; Local governments have the unique responsibility to serve all members of the public. However, disparities have long existed that affect outcomes for residents and employees of color. The systems, ; policies, and practices that are integrated in local governments may unintentionally create racial inequity. According to the Government Alliance on Race and Equity, racial equity is realized when race : can no longer be used to predict life outcomes. Within local parks and recreation, diversity can be integrated in the system through simple but powerful changes: : Requiring translation and interpretation services at recreation centers and facilities ■ Build pathways for economic opportunity for people of color Establish multiracial alliances, coalitions, and movements with partners to advance policy changes Teach the full history of the American Outdoors Increase economic accessibility to create more access points for all Expand the definition of outdoor recreation to be inclusive of small urban parks ■ ■ Source: Government Alliance on Race and Equity ; Educational Attainment Figure 4 below shows the percentage of residents (25+) that obtained various levels of education in the City of Georgetown. Only 6% of the residents had not received a high school or equivalent diploma. Over 26% had completed a Bachelor's Degree, and 16% had obtained a Graduate or Professional Level Degree. This is much higher than the State of Texas overall (11%) and the United States overall (13%). Figure 4: Educational Attainment in Georgetown Graduate/Professional Degree Less than High School Diploma 16% 1 6%° Bachelor's Degree 26% High School Diploma 18% GEDIAIternative Credential 4% Some College/No Degree Associate's Degree 22% 8% Parks and Recreation W§tgf24p Household Overview According to the American Community Survey, approximately 6.32% of City households were under the poverty level, with a median household income of $79,355. The household income in the City was higher than the State of Texas ($63,524) and the United States ($64,730). Approximately 18.7% of Georgetown households made between $50,000 and $74,999, as seen in Figure 5. Only 5.2% of households made less than $15,000 per year. Figure 5: Median Household Income Distribution, 2021 Estimates Source: Esri Business Analyst 20.0% 18.7% 18.8% n.9i 18.0% 173 i 15.6% 16.0% 13.0% 12.8% 15.8% 12.7% 14.0% 9.8% 12.3% 13.0% 11.9% 83% 84% 12.0% 9.6 % 10.6% 10.5% 8.5% 10.0% 8.4% 8.5% 7.2% 8.(Y%/ 8.0% 7.2%/ 6.0% 5.2 11 5.2 5.0 .0% 2 I 0.0% to p, C5 C5 ,b yc�, ao� ��p�o� y�� y�� ao of rac 000/ 1161 000 000 000' 00 OOGj h0 ^h 00, �0I �ti �ti 00000 �ti ■ Georgetown ■ Texas ■ USA Source: Esri Business Analyst I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 118 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome Employment In 2021, an estimated 4.5% of the City of Georgetown's population was unemployed, lower than the State of Texas (6.4%) and the United States (6.2%). Approximately 73% of the population was employed in white collar positions, which encompass jobs where employees typically perform managerial, technical, administrative, and/or professional capacities. Another 17% of the City's population were employed in blue collar positions, such as construction, maintenance, etc. Finally, 10% of Georgetown's residents were employed in the service industry. An estimated 78.1% of working residents drive alone to work, while 15% of residents spent seven plus hours a week commuting to and from work. People with Disabilities 13.4% LIVE WITH A DISABILITY Source: Earl Business Analyst, 2020 Health and Wellness 4.5% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE Source: Esri Business Analyst, 2020 According to the American Community Survey, 13.4% of Georgetown's population in 2021 experienced living with some sort of hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self -care difficulty, and/or independent living difficulty. This is lower than the state at 14.7% but still reaffirms the importance of inclusive programming and ADA transition plans for parks and facilities. Types of disabilities within the City of Georgetown: • Hearing difficulty —4.6% • Vision difficulty-2.0% • Cognitive difficulty —5.0% • Ambulatory difficulty — 6.9% • Self -care difficulty-2.3% • Independent living difficulty —5.5% Understanding the status of a community's health can help inform policies related to recreation and fitness. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's County Health Rankings and Roadmaps provides annual insight on the general health of national, state, and county populations. Williamson County is ranked among the healthiest counties in Texas; in 2020, it ranked 2nd out of 254 Texas Counties for Health Outcomes. Figure 6 provides additional information regarding the County's health data as it may relate to parks, recreation, and community services.' The strengths indicated below are those areas where Williamson County ranked higher than top U.S. performers or the State of Texas. The areas to explore are those where the County ranked lower than the State or top U.S. performers. RANKED 2nd FOR HEALTH OUTCOMES Robert Wood Johnson Foundation County Health Rankings O A Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, County Health Rankings 2020, http://www.County- healthrankings.org Parks and Recreation W§tgfV44 n Figure 6: Williamson County Health Rankings Overview Strengths -Food environment index -Physical inactivity -Access to exercise opportunities -Teen births -Uninsured -Preventable hospital stays -High school completion -Unemployment -Children in poverty •Income inequality Areas to Explore -Adult Smoking -Adult Obesity Source: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's County Health Rankings and Roadmaps Parks and Recreation as Wellness Hubs : Parks and Recreation agencies are adapting to serve as Community Wellness Hubs, places for community members to improve health outcomes and enhance quality of life. Whether by providing access to healthy foods, physical activity, social connections, or access to nature, local parks and recreation departments can increase the health in their community. Numerous studies have continued to indicate the health benefits of outdoor spaces, recreation programs, and community centers. According to the National Recreation and Parks Association: Living close to parks and other recreation facilities is consistently related to higher physical activity : levels for both adults and youth. : Adolescents with easy access to multiple recreation facilities were more physically active and less likely to be overweight or obese than adolescents without access to such facilities. Increasing access to recreation facilities is an essential strategy for preventing childhood obesity. Organized Park programs and supervision may increase the use of parks and playgrounds and may also increase physical activity, particularly among youths. Park renovations can increase vigorous physical activity among children and can also increase the use of certain types of facilities, including playgrounds and skate parks. ; Park and recreation agencies are the second largest public feeder of children, next to schools. Park and recreation agencies annually serve approximately 560 million meals to children through : summer and after -school programs Source: Government Alliance on Race and Equity IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII''IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Page 120 of 291 GEORGETOWN T e x a s more than welcome B. Trends Relevant to Georgetown The following is a summary of key trends that could impact the City of Georgetown over the next five to ten years, as well as a list of other relevant categories for trends that the City may consider. The trends include those at the local level as well as the national level that are relevant to the City of Georgetown. A full trends report has been provided to the City as a staff document. Local Participation Estimates Esri Business Analyst provides estimates for activity participation and consumer behavior based on a specific methodology and survey data to makeup what Esri terms "Market Potential Index." The following charts showcase the participation in leisure activities, outdoor recreation, and sports teams for adults 25 and older. The activities with the highest participation include walking for exercise, swimming, hiking, weightlifting, golf, jogging, camping trips, and road biking. Table 2: Adult Participation for Fitness Activities 35.00% 30.00% 29.22% 25.00% 20.0No 16.70% 15.00% 11.50% 10.00% 7.56 /o 0 8.56% 5.00% 3.03% 3.53% 0.00% 1 ■ I I I 1 ■ Aerobia Pilates Swimming Walking For Weight Lifting Yoga Zumba Exercise Table 3: Adult Participation in Outdoor Recreation 14.00% 12.68% 12.011% 10.53% 10.87% 11.23% ° 10.25 /o 10.0(P/o 9.11% 8.00% 6.11% 6.00% 4.21% 4.00% 3.23% 3.63% 3.63% 3.15% 2.18% 2.14% 2.35% 2.00oo 1 I I I 1 1 1 0.00 /o epee P � 5 0 o�`�o c�'`��. �o{�a� `��Q�o F `� 4t� c �ot4 ¢0 Parks and Recreation W§ JgfV44 n Table 4: Adult Participation in Team Sports 8.00% 7.32% 7.00% 6.00% 5.00% 4.01% 4.18% 4.00% 3.58% 3.80% 3.17% 3.00% 2.14% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% Baseball Basketball Football Soccer Softball Tennis Volleyball Aquatics and Water Recreation Trends Aquatic facilities are locations where individuals may get exercise, participate in sports, and have competitive fun. Aquatic centers and municipal waterparks are one of the fastest expanding divisions of the water leisure industry, according to the World Waterpark Association.z According to the 2021 Aquatic Trends Report, "some 16.7% of rec centers in 2020 said they had built a new aquatic facility in the past several years, compared to 6.1% in 2019.."3 Even though these centers are one of the fastest growing segments in the water leisure industry, their budget will still decide their ability to maintain their equipment, which facility design trends are implemented, and their ability to meet the needs of the community. Fortunately, even with the impact that the pandemic has had, park and camp respondents predict their average running costs to be the same in 2021 as they were in 2019.1 Some of these opportunities could include aquatic therapy and aerobics which can also assist in the healing process from injuries. These facilities can greatly transform a person's health which is why the World Health Organization has stressed that "children's physical and social environments are significant determinants of their overall health and well-being". Having access to an aquatic area often improves someone's overall health when they take part in swimming, water aerobics, Stand Up Paddle -board (SUP) yoga, Aqua-Yoga/Balance Programs, and/or water basketball, volleyball, or water polo. 2 Press." Waterparks.org, 2020, www.wateroarks.org/web/Press.aspx. Accessed 30 Sept. 2021. 3 Tipping, E. (2021, February). Just Keep Swimming: The 2021 Aquatic Trends Report. Recreation Management. htts: recmanagement.com/feature/202102SU01. 4 Tucker, P., Gilliland, J., & Irwin, J. D. (2007). Splashpads, Swings, and Shade. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 98(3), 198-202. https://doi.org/10.1007/bfO3403712 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 122 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mandates accessible access to aquatic centers. People with disabilities are able to utilize aquatic facilities with the assistance of zero -entry pool access, ramps, or chair lifts. Another water accessibility issue is one of racial disparity. Studies have shown that "64% of black children and 45% of Hispanic children have little to no swimming ability, compared with 40% of white children". Many facilities have outreach programs focused primarily on low-income, ethnic, and water -phobic populations to address these discrepancies and reach people who lack swimming skills due to a fear of water.' Splash pads are a great service that can remedy situations where people aren't eager to submerge themselves into the water but are still looking to cool off. This type of facility is more cost efficient as it requires no lifeguard, uses less water than a pool, requires less maintenance, and the initial construction of splash pads also costs less than swimming pools. Splash pads oftentimes have longer hours and seasons than pools, so not surprisingly parents that were interviewed when frequenting parks expressed that they wished that wading pools had longer hours of operation as well as a longer outdoor season. Another comparison between pools and splash pads can be made by how they can improve revenue. A straightforward way to add revenue to an already existing splash pad is by building a pavilion for large parties for utilization for rentals. Pools can also add additional elements to increase their revenue such as pool zip lines, "ninja" climbing nets, and poolside rock climbing walls. The AquaZip'N, AquaNinja, and AquaClimb are examples of these safe adventure elements that are trending at the moment. In addition, aquatic centers can consider less permanent amenities such as log rolls, giant inflatable obstacle courses, and screen projectors for "dive - in" movies. 5 Amico, L. (2019, April 10). 3 Emerging Trends in Aquatic Adventure Recreation. AquaClimb. https://www.aguaclimb. com/blog/2019/4/10/3-emerging-trends-in-ag uatic-adventu re -recreation. Parks and Recreation W§ jgfp4p Recreation/Community Centers Community centers are public gathering places where people of the community may socialize, participate in recreational or educational activities, obtain information, and seek counseling or support services, amongst other things.' Several studies have found a correlation between the outdoor leisure involvement that community centers provide and a person's greater environmental concern. The main impact from the addition of these centers is the improvement in community health, social connectivity, and mental well-being. A national long-term study conducted of over 17,000 teens who frequented recreation facilities found that they were 75 percent more likely to engage in the highest category of moderate to strenuous physical exercise. Since these activities that they partake in involve a considerable amount of effort, the benefits have been shown to include "reduced obesity, a diminished risk of disease, an enhanced immune system and most importantly, increased life expectancy". 7 Clubs and sports offered by community centers also strengthen social connections and reduce social isolation. Along with an increase in social connectivity brought by community centers comes a sense of satisfaction with a person's choice of friends and perceived success in life. The evidence strongly suggests that this satisfaction can rise to much higher levels if participation in outdoor recreation begins in childhood. The following info graphic demonstrates the potential for community services in offering non-traditional services. Figure 7: Non -Traditional Services Desired in Community Centers Per a recent NRPA poll, Americans urge their local recreation center to offer a wide variety of nontraditional services, including... o Healthy Programming Nature -Based Living Classes for Older Adults Activities 51% 46% 45 % 6 0 Access to Inclusive Facilites Health Computers and for All Abilities Clinics and the Internet and Needs Services 43% 41% 38% These are in addition to services traditionally offered by park and recreation agencies - including fitness centers, out -of -school time programming and aquatic facilities. �IVRPA"a"°"°'"°"°°"°" www.nrpa.org/Park-Pulse an0 Dark Assocladon °Er° everyone Deserve °9re°l P°rR 6 Community centers. County Health Rankings & Roadmaps. (2020, January 21). https://www.countvhealthrankings. org/ta ke-action-to-improve-health/what-works-for-hea Ith/strategies/commu n ity-centers. 7 National Association of Community Health Centers, Inc. (2012, August). Powering Healthier Communities: November 2010 Community Health Centers Address the Social Determinants of Health. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 124 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome Outdoor Fitness Trails A popular trend in urban parks for health, wellness, and fitness activities is to install outdoor fitness equipment along trails. The intent of the outdoor equipment is to provide an accessible form of exercise for all community members, focusing on strength, balance, flexibility, and cardio exercise. These fitness stations — also known as "outdoor gyms" -- are generally meant for adults but can be grouped together near a playground or kid -friendly amenity so that adults can exercise and socialize while supervising their children. The fitness equipment can also be dispersed along a nature trail or walking path to provide a unique experience to exercise in nature. Educational and safety signage should be placed next to equipment to guide the user in understanding and utilizing the outdoor gyms. Trails and Health A connected system of trails increases the level of physical activity in a community, according to the Trails for Health initiative of the (CDC). Trails can provide a wide variety of opportunities for being physically active, such as walking/running/hiking, rollerblading, wheelchair recreation, bicycling, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing, fishing, hunting, and horseback riding. Recognizing that active use of trails for positive health outcomes is an excellent way to encourage people to adopt healthy lifestyle changes. American Trails has launched a "Health and Trails" resource section in its website: www.americantrails. orgZresources/benefits/. The health benefits are equally as high for trails in urban neighborhoods as for those in state or national parks. A trail in the neighborhood, creating a 'linear park', makes it easier for people to incorporate exercise into their daily routines, whether for recreation or non -motorized transportation. Urban trails need to connect people to places they want to go, such as schools, transit centers, businesses, and neighborhoods. Outdoor Recreation Outdoor recreation participation has changed greatly due to COVID-19 and several research reports have been conducted to analyze these trends. New participants were mostly looking for socially distant outdoor activities in order to spend quality time with their loved ones while remaining safe, exercising, staying healthy, and reducing screen time fatigue. More people have been spending time outside because the pandemic has resulted in screen fatigue, although this screen time had traditionally been a barrier to spending time outside. It has been reported that screen time has still increased during the pandemic as people use it as a replacement for going out to bars and events, however most plan to reduce their screen time once restrictions are lifted. Unfortunately, one -quarter of new participants admit that they will most likely not continue their activities once restrictions are lifted due to the difficulty of travel, resuming other activities, and family demands. Travel is an obstacle that many struggle with regarding outdoor participation, which is why a lack of information about where to go, how to participate, and what groups one could possibly join are additional barriers related to this issue. An increase in this information during a time like this could attract new participants and keep others within their already existing routines. Parks and Recreation W§ Jgfp4p The Outdoor Industry Association gives the definition of a new participant which are, "those who either started an outdoor activity for the first time or for the first time in more than a year during the pandemic (since March 2020)".' As mentioned earlier with the travel barrier, new participants are largely encouraged to engage in outdoor activities when there are low barriers to entry and the activity is within 10 miles of their home. Many times, such activities include walking, running, biking, and hiking because they all are easily accessible. However, vacations can also provide an "entry point" for someone to try a new activity that they would not usually engage in such as kayaking or fishing. The most popular activities vary by ethnicity which is shown below:' Asian Americans A t 00 Running/Jogging and Hiking Road Biking, Mountain Trail Running (25.5%) (20%) Biking and BMX (16.2% ) African Americans A A +- Running/Jogging and Road Biking, Mountain Freshwater, Saltwater, Trail Running (17.3%) Biking and BMX (10.9%) and Fly Fishing (9.9 % ) Hispanics AA 10 n0 Running/Jogging and Road Biking, Mountain Car, Backyard, Backpacking Trail Running (21%) Biking and BMX (15.4%) and RV Camping (14.3 % ) Caucasians Hiking Freshwater, Saltwater, ARunning/Jogging and (19.4% and Fly Fishing (17.9%) [1 Trail Running (16.5 % ) In the 2020 report, the findings showed that children ages 6 to 17 went on an average of 77.1 outdoor outings per person per year, whereas young adults (between 18 and 24 years old) went on 14.1 more outings per year compared to children. In fact, young adults went on 20.5 more outings than anyone ranging from 6 years old and up. Outdoor Industry Association. (2021, March 31). 2021 Special Report: New Outdoor Participant (COVID and beyond). Outdoor Industry Association. (2020, December 31). 2020 Outdoor Participation Report. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 126 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome Almost half of the new participants said that they had previous experience with their new outdoor activity and almost a third of people found out about their new outdoor activity via friends or relatives. Below is a list of the outdoor participant profile demographics: Asian Americans 0 O Existing New Participants: 6% Participants: 9% Native Americans or Pacific Islanders *+,==v 0 Existing New Participants:1% ,rParticipants:1% Hispanics 0 Eg11tNexistin Participants:17% Participa 14% African 0 Existing Participants:11% Americans O New Participants:14% Caucasians 0 O Existing New Participants: 71% Participants: 66% Parks and Recreation W§ jgfp4p New participants are also more likely to be female (58% vs. 49%), slightly more ethnically diverse (71% vs. 66% white), more likely to live in an urban area (36% vs. 29%), and lastly more likely to be in a lower income bracket (46% vs. 41% with income of $100K+). Although Hispanic and Black participation numbers have increased recently, they still do not represent their population size. For example, Black Americans would need an additional 9 million participants to equal their percent share of the U.S. population and Hispanic Americans would need an additional 19 million participants. Out of all these households, ones that have children have much higher participation rates than adults without children (57% vs. 44.4%)." The reports show that there are multiple ways in which the retention of new participants can be improved upon. Once restrictions are lifted, making activities more social will draw in new participants because many people are looking for ways to reconnect with the community. The development of programs that have the objective to work towards diversifying the participant base should also be pushed to increase the opportunity of people apart from Caucasians. The creation of new outdoor recreation opportunities will increase the activities close to people's homes which will make them more likely to participate. Additionally, social media is a great tool to promote outdoor participation through providing information on these opportunities, providing training to build confidence, and by providing networking outlets for people to find others to participate with. Outdoor activities are a low-cost remedy for bringing friends, families, and communities together safely along with making positive changes in one's mental and physical wellbeing. Pickleball Pickleball continues to be a fast-growing sport throughout America. Considered a mix between tennis, ping pong, and badminton, the sport initially grew in popularity with older adults but is now expanding to other age groups. According to the American Council on Exercise (ACE), regular participation in Pickleball satisfied daily exercise intensity guidelines for cardio fitness for middle-aged and older adults. The sport can be temporarily played on existing indoor or outdoor tennis courts with removable equipment and taped or painted lining. This lining, if painted on tennis surfaces, may interfere with requirements for competitive tennis programs or tournaments. Agencies will need to look at their community's tennis and pickleball participation to determine the benefits and costs of constructing new pickleball courts versus utilizing existing tennis ball courts. Best practices regarding pickleball setup and programming can be found on usapa.com, the official website for the United States Pickleball Association. According to the 2020 SFIA Topline Report, over the past five years, from 2014 to 2019, total participation in Pickleball increased 7.1 percent on average each year. From 2018 to 2019, the sport grew 4.8 percent. Out of the most common racquet sports, pickleball and cardio tennis are the only sports that have seen positive growth on average over the past five years. Tennis is still the most popular racquet sport by far, although participation growth has slowed over the past five years. 10 Outdoor Industry Association. (2020, December 31). 2020 Outdoor Participation Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 128 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome Figure 8: Racquet Sport Participation from 2014 - 2019 20,000 18,000 a 16,000 a 14,000 So 12,000 1 10,000 C g 8,000 0 6,000 4,000 V r 2,000 0 2014 2015 2016 2017 ?�18 ? 1S Year Picklebail -Badminton CardioTennis -Racquetball -enri Source: 2020 SFIA Topline Report Shade Structures Communities around the country are considering adding shade structures as well as shade trees to their parks, playgrounds, and pools, as "a weapon against cancer and against childhood obesity"1; both to reduce future cancer risk and promote exercise among children. A study found that melanoma rates in people under 20 rose three percent a year between 1973 and 2001, possibly due to a thinning of the ozone layer in the atmosphere. It is recommended that children seek shade between 10am and 4pm, but with so little shade available, kids have nowhere to go. Additionally, without adequate shade, many play areas are simply too hot to be inviting to children. On sunny days, the playground equipment is hot enough to scald the hands of would-be users. Trees would help provide protection, as tree leaves absorb about 95 percent of ultraviolet radiation, but they take a decade or more to grow large enough to make a difference. So, many communities are building shade structures instead. The non-profit Shade Foundation of American is a good resource for information about shade and shade structures, www.shadefoundation.org. Parks and Recreation W§JqEfV4p Other Relevant Trends Categories: (full details of each provided in staff document) • Special Events • Dog Parks • Community Gardens • Cycling Trends • Farmer's Markets • Generational Preferences in Recreation • Youth (6 to 17) most popular outdoor activities • Young adults (18 to24) most popular outdoor activities • National Healthy Lifestyle Trends • Nature Programming & Nature -Deficit Disorder • Older Adults and Senior Programming • Synthetic Turf • Healthy Aging in Parks I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 130 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Parks and Recreation � §. gfp4p A. Community Engagement Community and Stakeholder Input Public engagement was a key component during the planning process. Due to COVID-19, Zoom webinars were used to perform the engagement. Sixteen focus group meetings and stake holder interviews were conducted between May 3-20, 2021. Many organizations were represented at each of the meetings, including local sports groups, non-profit organizations, school districts, community businesses, and residents with an interest in the Department. The participants took part in a facilitated discussion that focused on gathering information in the following areas: • Resident or non-resident and number of years living in Georgetown • Strengths related to the Department • Areas for improvement that should be addressed in the master plan • Additional programming and activities that should be offered • New indoor and outdoor facilities desired • New amenities desired • Portions of Georgetown that are under -served • Key issues to consider • Priorities that should be addressed over the next five to ten years An open public meeting was conducted on May 24, 2021, via Zoom webinar. The meeting was advertised throughout the community using the City's outreach efforts, the project website, and other forms of communication. During the meeting, the consultant team provided a presentation of the results of the input that was gathered during the focus group and stake holder sessions. Those in attendance were also provided the opportunity to provide additional input. The meeting was recorded and then posted to the project website. In addition to the focus groups, stakeholder interviews, and open public meeting, an online questionnaire was distributed through the gtxparkplan.com website to gather input concerning programs, facilities, and services. The results of all the input gathered were used by the consultant team to establish the community survey. Community Survey Summary The purpose of the survey was to gather community feedback on the City of Georgetown's parks and recreation facilities, amenities, programs, future planning, communication, and more general information to assist in the planning efforts. The survey research effort and subsequent analysis were designed to assist the City of Georgetown in developing a Master Plan to reflect the community's needs and desires. The survey included both an "invitation" and an "open link" opportunity to participate. A total of 2,036 responses were received with 491 responses through the invitation mailing and 1,545 received through the open link. The survey was administered to residents living in city limits, who receive services through the Department. The full report along with all open-ended comments has been provided to the Department as a staff document. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 132 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome Survey Demographics The survey assessed the demographic profile of those who participated and asked respondents to identify where they live by location related to the Parkland Dedication Zone Map (Figure 10). Demographic information obtained through the survey included number of years lived in the city, household location, household composition, gender, age, race/ethnicity, registered voter, required ADA accessibility, home ownership, and household income. The following are highlights of the demographics: • 34 percent live in Georgetown 1-5 years • 39 percent live in Georgetown 6-20 years • 20 percent live in Georgetown over 21 years • 89 percent own their own residence • 10% have a need for ADA accessible facilities and amenities Figure 9: Parkland Dedication Zone Map PARKLAND DEDICATION ZONES Zone 1: West of I- t of Williamsliams Dr Zone 2: West of I-35/North of Williams Dr ■ ■ Zone 3: East of 1-35/North of Hwy 29 Zone 4: East of 1-35/South of Hwy 29 ' Don't know Other n= I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Parks and Recreation W§.§ EfV44 n The Survey The survey was constructed to gather information in the following categories: • Familiarity with Georgetown Parks and Recreation • Frequency of household participation in programs or use of facilities • Types of facilities used by the household • Forms of transportation to access parks, community centers, and/or recreation facilities • Opportunities to increase usage of parks and recreation facilities • Importance of facilities and amenities to household • Importance of programs and services to household • Needs met of facilities and amenities to household • Needs met of programs and service to household • Communication effectiveness of Georgetown Parks and Recreation • Need for improvement to facilities over the next 5-10 years • Need for improvement to programs and services over the next 5-10 years • Importance of amenities and/or programs at indoor recreation center/aquatics facility • Increased user fee impacts on household • Support for funding options The survey is to be used as a tool along with the additional analysis work completed throughout the master plan to assist in guiding future recommendations to improve the services offered by the Department. The survey results were presented to the public during an open public meeting conducted August 25, 2021. The complete results of the survey and all public comments were provided to the Department as a staff document and were also published online via the project website gtxparkplan. com. Selected Key Findings- Community Survey The following is a list and narrative of the key findings of the survey: #, PARK & RECREATION USERS . Prior to the COVID-10 pandemic, nearly half of invite respondents in Georgetown used city parks at least a few times a month or more often. • Trails, restrooms and open spaces are the most used amenities at parks and recreation facilities. • Open Link respondents, although similarto the invite sample, are somewhat more frequent users of most facilities. IMPORTANCE OF FACILITIES Ok& SERVICES On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being very important, the most important facilities or amenities to a household were: • parks (4.4) • trails and pathways (4.3) • parks and open spaces (4.2) The most important programs and services to a household were: • fitness programs (3.4) adult recreation programs (3.2) senior programs (3.2) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 134 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome Ir" COMMUNICATION There is room for improvement to better leverage communication efforts and information dissemination about parks and recreation facilities and services to further create awareness in Georgetown. Over 30% of invite respondents indicated that communication effectiveness is not effective with an average score of 2.9 (on a scale of 1 to 5). 0 0 0 lNr.RFA',';F llI;F "`' Invite respondents listed the following as top items that if addressed would increase parks and recreation usage: • improved communication about offerings • better lighting • better maintenance Open link respondents also said better lighting but indicated that having facilities closer to where they live i FUT U R F PROGRAM n I E E D S would increase their use. • • •' FUTURE FACILITY NEEDS On a scale of 1-5, respondents feel the most important items to • focus on for facilities and amenities in the future are: �� • adding trails in neighborhood parks and/or connecting parks to city trail systems (4.2) • acquiring land for new parks in underserved areas (4.0) • better maintenance follows at 3.8. 0 NEEDS MET FACILITIES & V SERVICES In terms of facilities and services meeting the needs of the community, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being most needs met, respondents feel that the following are meeting the needs the best: • trails and pathways (4.0) • amenities at parks (3.9) • youth athletics (3.7) • senior programs (3.7) Skateboard parks and environmental programs rated lower for invite and open link respondents (3.2 and 3.1, respectively). FUNDING SOURCES Nearly three-quarters of invite respondents (73%) would probably/definitely support more private/public partnerships as potential funding sources. Positive support for bond referendums for special projects also exists (59%). On a scale of 1-5 for identifying future programs and services, invite respondents rated more after school and summer programs (3.6) as the most important need for the future. More fitness/wellness/health programs was also important for both invite and open link respondents. TRANSPORTATION A motor vehicle is the most used and preferred method of transportation to parks and recreation facilities. .1 -- FUTURE INDOOR RECREATION rFNTFR Gymnasium amenities are the most important amenities for a new indoor recreation center. The top two amenities are fitness areas with weights and cardio equipment and group exercise rooms. Parks and Recreation §�qf&n U.S. census data has shown Georgetown as one of the top 10 fastest -growing cities in the nation with a population above 50,000 residents. The changing needs of the community require the Department to continually evaluate what the right mix of facilities and programs are to meet demand. As the community grows so does the demands of the Parks and Recreation system. The Department budget is divided into two distinct areas. The first area is comprised of Parks, Park Administration and Garey Park. Figure 10: Year Budget Trend This portion of the budget encompasses the operations $10,000,000 and management of the City's $9,000,000 53 parks and almost 20 miles of $8,000,000 hike and bike trails. The second $7,000,000 area includes a wide variety $6,000,000 of leisure and educational $5,000,000 opportunities including $4,000,000 aquatics, the Georgetown $3,000,000 Recreation Center, Teen/Senior $z 000,000 Center, and Tennis Center. $1,000,000 The Department has had $o p FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 steady budget growth during Budgeted Budgeted Budgeted Budgeted Budgeted the past five fiscal years. Since personnel Operations Capitol Total Department Budget 2017, the overall Parks and Recreation budget increased by 27.97 percent. However, it is important to recognize most of this growth is attributed to the addition of Garey Park. Apart from the addition of Garey Park, the Parks, Park Administration, and Garey Park budget grew by approximately 17 percent and the Recreation and Tennis Center budget grew by approximately 14 percent over 5 fiscal years. This growth has generally kept pace with community development. In 2004, the City of Georgetown received the largest gill in its history when Jack and ■ ■ Cammy Garey announced that they would ■ ■ be donating their ranch to the City. The Gareys bequeathed their 525-acre ranch to ■ ■ the City of Georgetown with the agreement ■ ■ that it will be developed as a public City park. The ranch is west of the City, features ■ ■ scenic hill country terrain, and borders the ■ ■ San Gabriel River. In addition to their ranch, the Gareys' gill includes their estate home ■ ■ and a $5 million cash donation, which was ■ ■ matched by the City for the development of the park. This park has been developed to ■ ■ include an event center, equestrian facility, ■ trails, and pavilions. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 136 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome Table 5: FY17-FY21 General Fund Budget Combined Department Budget �11111 I FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 5-Year 5 Year Budgeted Budgeted Budgeted Budgeted Budgeted Change Variance $3,415,883 $4,268,665 $4,625,696 $3,199,722 $3,107,430 ($308,453) -9.93% $2,985,093 $3,838,777 $4,209,378 $5,811,531 $5,779,566 $2,794,473 48.35% Personnel Operations Capital $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 #DIV/0! Total $6,400,976 $8,107,442 $8,835,074 $9,016,253 $8,886,996 $2,486,020 27.97% Parks, Park Administration and Garey Park FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 Budgeted Budgeted Budgeted Budgeted Budgeted $1,321,289 $1,905,981 $2,185,351 $1,658,591 $1,630,581 5-Year 5 Year Change Variance $309,292 18.97% Personnel Operations $1,153,650 $1,900,913 $2,177,664 $2,719,318 $2,699,469 $1,545,819 57.26% Capital $0 $0 $5,000 $0 Total $2,474,939 $3,806,894 $4,363,015 $4,382,909 $4,330,050 $1,855,111 42.84% Recreation and Tennis Center FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 Budgeted Budgeted Budgeted Budgeted Budgeted $2,094,594 $2,362,684 $2,440,345 $1,541,131 $1,476,849 5-Year 5 Year Change Variance ($617,745)-41.83% Personnel Operations $1,831,443 $1,937,864 $2,031,714 $3,092,213 $3,080,097 $1,248,654 40.54% Operating Expenditures per Capita A key metric the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) aggregates and reports on annually Typical Agency GTX Operating Operating Expenditures Per in its Agency Performance Review is typical operating Expenditures Per Capita expenditures per capita. This measurement marks non- capita capital (i.e., for operational, services and materials, etc.) dollar spending for each person living in the Georgetown service area. In 2020, a typical parks and recreation • _ • agency of a similar size spent $88.53 for each person _ ar within their service boundary. The Department spent $112 in FY20 — above the typical agency's responsible for providing parks and recreation services. If the Garey Park budget is extracted from the calculation, per capita spending drops to $98.34. The Department is currently keeping up with per capita spending standards, but as growth in Georgetown continues, park and recreation per capita spending should be re-evaluated to safeguard it is keeping pace with the population. Current population projections indicate the Department budget will need to increase by approximately 1.5 million in the next 5 years to maintain the same level of service to Georgetown residents. Revenue -to -Operating Expenditures According to 2021 NRPA Agency Review the typical parks and recreation agency in the United States recovers 26% percent of its operating expenditures from non -tax revenues. This measurement is also known as "cost recovery." The FY20 cost recovery for the collective Department was 32 percent. When Garey Park is removed from the equation Cost Recovery drops to 31 percent. As Garey Park continues to expand its offering and attract new users it is anticipated that the Department's overall cost recovery will continue to rise. Parks and Recreation §�gfV44 n Table 6: Gorey Park Year over Year Revenue Admissions - General $129,941.03 $131,079.00 $ 202,085.00 Admissions - Equestrian $ 8,718.00 $ 6,650.00 $ 8,974.00 Annual Pass - General $ 45,607.00 $ 52,726.51 $ 74,238.00 Annual Pass - Equestrian $ 2,688.00 $ 1,067.00 $ 1,425.00 Park Rentals $ 74,585.00 $ 13,940.00 $ 68,419.00 Garey House Rentals $111,672.50 $ 46,512.50 $ 117,710.00 Total $ 373,211.53 $ 251,975.01 $ 472,851.00 It is important that the Department maintains its ability to enrich the quality of life for all residents of Georgetown and to deliver services at the level residents are accustomed to experiencing. The Community Survey showed an increase in user fees would somewhat limit participation for 45% of invite respondents and significantly limit participation for another 13%. Overall Zone 1 Fee increases would not limit. participation at all Fee increases would limit - participation somewhat Fee increases would limit, partcipation significantly Dontknow/uncertain ' n= Zone 2 Zone 3 r M Zone 4 The Community Survey also showed an increase in user fees would affect residents living in Zones 3 & 4 more than those who live in Zone 1 & 2. Overall Invite Open Fee increases would not limit participation at all M M Fee increases would limit participation somewhat Fee increases would limit participation significantly ■ . ■ Dont know/uncertain. ■ . n= I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / i • Page 138 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome Benchmarking Analysis Benchmarking with other nearby communities can be an effective tool that allows for a point of comparison with other agencies — allowing the City of Georgetown to understand areas of opportunity or saturation. This process of benchmarking creates a deeper understanding of other providers in the area, thereby gaining clarity on how other agencies manage their budget, bring in revenue, offer programs, and run their facilities. The intent of benchmarking is not to compare "apple to apples" with other agencies, as each jurisdiction has its own unique identity, ways of conducting business, and distinct community needs. The political, social, economic, and physical characteristics of each community make the policies and practices of each Parks and Recreation agency unique. Additionally, organizations do not typically measure or define various metrics the same way for parks, trails, facilities, and maintenance. Agencies also vary in terms of how they organize their budget information, and it may be difficult to assess whether the past year's expenses are typical for the community. Finally, the impact of COVID-19 has significantly altered program offerings, facility availability, and overall program delivery. Therefore, it is important to take all data in a benchmarking study with context, realizing that while benchmarking can be a great comparative tool, it doesn't necessarily lend itself into being a decision -making tool. In this study, five nearby agencies were compared to the City of Georgetown. The population for these neighboring municipalities ranged from 81,043 to 142,173. Although Georgetown currently has a population of 74,198, the city is growing rapidly, which is why the communities were selected as a way to understand how operations and budgets may need to change in the future. The square mileage of the incorporated jurisdiction ranged from 22.85 to 87.95 square miles, with Georgetown at an estimated 59.63 square miles. Most of the data was sourced from the National Recreation and Park Association Park Metrics data, except for Round Rock. For this agency, we personally reached out and requested the information. The following study looks at several metrics including: • Operating Expenditures • Percentage of agency's total operating expenditures • Operating Expenditures per FTE • FTE's per 10,000 Population Table 7: Population of Benchmarked Communities "I 8 0 0 Municipality Georgetown Allen Cedar Park 2020 Population 74,198 107,415 81,043 Denton 142,173 New Braunfels 95,782 Round Rock 120,975 Square Mileage of Incorporated Jurisdiction 59.63 27.11 22.85 87.95 43.87 38.08 Parks and Recreation §�gEfp4p Operating Expenditures Operating expenditures from 2020 were researched from planning and budget documents. These numbers should be used as an estimate only, due to the possibility of errors, data omissions, and changes due to COVID-19. Data from the study indicate that expenditures varied greatly, with peer agencies spending between $4.4 million (Cedar Park) to $23.4 million (Allen) annually. Nearly all the other agencies had annual operating expenditures of at least $10 million. The City of Georgetown had expenditures of $8,310,668 in 2020, the second lowest of all municipalities compared. Table 8: Percentage of agency's total operating expenditures Georgetown Allen Cedar Park Denton New Braunfels Round Rock OperatingTable 8: Agency Estimated Georgetown $8,310,668 Allen $23,440,299 Cedar Park $4,474,043 Denton $13,340,906 New Braunfels $10,632,889 Round Rock $11,768,746 ■Parks ih Recreation Other Source: NRPA Park Metrics, 2020; Green Play LLC Table 9: Percentage of agency's total operating expenditures from the following sources a. General fund tax support 84% 65% 88% 50% 70% b. Dedicated levies c. Earned/generated revenue d. Other dedicated taxes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 16% 34% 12% 45% 30% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% e. Sponsorships 0% f. Grants 0% g. Other (describe below) 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% Source: NRPA Park Metrics, 2020; Green Play LLC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 140 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome Organizational Assessment The Organizational Assessment evaluates current staffing needs and structure. Georgetown's staffing includes 83 full-time equivalents (FTEs) with a mix of full-time and seasonal staff. 160.00 140.00 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 FTE COMPARISON TO SIMILAR SIZED AGENCIES ■ Georgetown ■ Median ■ Upper Quartile Total FTE 134.87 10.58 9.3 17.2 FTE per 10,000 In addition, Georgetown was similar to other agencies when comparing FTE's per 10,000 population. Georgetown had 10.58 FTEs per 10,000 population, similar to Denton (11.38), New Braunfels (10.68), and Round Rock (9.30). Cedar Park was significantly lower at 4.44, while the City of Allen was much higher at 20.24. This type of analysis demonstrates that the city may currently be meeting the needs when compared to the other agencies but may not account for the rapid growth in the area. Table 10: FTE's per 10,000 population 10.S8 1 20.24 1 4.44 1 11.38 1 10.68 1 9.30 Staffing Distribution Agencies across the U.S. often dedicate and distribute a certain number of employee positions in different divisions of their department, such as Parks and Facilities, Administration, or Recreation Services, based on the specific needs of a community. However, comparing distribution of staff against national averages of typical agencies can be a helpful yardstick to aid in decision making. Department staffing investment and distribution, compared nationally by function, are shown below. Table 11: Staffina Distribution Comparison Parks and Facilities FTEs 45.65 Distribution 55% vfpicai gr Median FTEs Percentage Distribution Distribution 32.85 vfpicai 45% 12.8 Recreation Services 19.92 24% 24.82 34% -4.9 Administration 15.77 19% 13.14 18% 2.63 Capital Development 1.66 2% 2.19 3% -0.53 Total 83 73 Parks and Recreation W§4gfV44 n Operating Expenditures per FTE The City of Georgetown spent $112,109 in annual operating expenditures in 2020 for each employee (as measured by FTEs). Compared to the other nearby agencies compared in this study, Georgetown fell in the middle — with the City of Denton significantly lower ($82,458) and Cedar Park ranked as the highest at $124,279. Figure 11: Operating Expenditures per FTE $140,000 $124,279 $120,000 $112,109 $112,083 $107,841 $103,989 $100,000 � $82,458 $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 $0 Georgetown Allen Cedar Park Denton New Braunfels Round Rock Exploring Financial Opportunities Exploring financial opportunities was a key priority for focus groups and stakeholder participants, as well as survey respondents. The Community Survey shows nearly three-quarters of invite respondents (73%) would probably/definitely support more private/public partnerships as potential funding sources Positive support for bond referendums for special projects also exists (59%). An increase in user fees is less supported; however, it still has positive support. 5- Definitely support 4- Probably support 3 - Neutral 2 - Probably not support 1- Definitely not support More private/public partnerships Bond referendum for specific projects Increased user fees Invite 4.0 410 Open 4.0 E70' Invite 3.5 420. Open 3.7 883 , Invite 3.1 431 ■ Open 3.2 909 r Percent Responding: L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 142 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome The Department should continue pursuing funding strategies that provide alternative funds from the City's General Fund. The following financial opportunities have been identified: A. Determine dedicated City funding sources: According to the Community Survey, residents were in support of the idea of a bond for capital improvements. B. Elevate the Friends of Georgetown Parks and Recreation: Park and recreation foundations are valuable partners for many local park and recreation agencies. A foundation can provide expertise and support for fundraising, community engagement and relationship building. Benefits include: • Extra fundraising capacity • Ability to serve beyond the scope of a traditional park and recreation agency • Advocacy • Expertise • Flexibility arising from the fact that foundations are not government agencies • A volunteer base C. Implement a Financial Resource Allocation Philosophy and Policy: Establishing a carefully considered philosophy for cost recovery and subsidy allocation is the foundation for the development of financial management strategies. It can allow staff to recognize where subsidy is being applied, determine if it is at an appropriate level, and express how and why services are priced as they are. Another result of an articulated cost recovery philosophy is to help explain the costs of, and justify pricing of, new services. D. Seek private funding through sponsorship, advertising, and naming rights: Many cities have turned to selling the naming rights for new buildings or renovation of existing buildings and parks for the development cost associated with the improvement. Parks and Recreation W§Agfp4p A. Parks and Facilities Inventory and Assessment Step 1: Inventory - What Do We Have? In May 2021, the consultant team used the GRASP® -IT audit tool (more detail found in Appendix C) in each park and facility to count and score the function and quality of: • Components — things you go to a park to use, examples: playground, tennis court, picnic shelter • Modifiers —things that enhance comfort and convenience, examples: shade, drinking fountains, restrooms Evaluators assigned a quality value (between 0 and 3) to each park site, component, and modifiers, allowing the comparison of sites and analysis of the overall level of service provided by the Georgetown park system. Photos depict various examples and conditions from those visits. Figures 12: System inventory examples (right). Assessment Summary Observations based on visits to each park or facility include the following: • Overall, parks are in good condition and well maintained • Signage consistent across the system • Some access and ADA issues o For example, plastic curb walls at playgrounds limit access • Turf conditions vary • Limited or no open used diamonds or rectangles in the system • Many undeveloped or underdeveloped properties limit the level of service in some areas • Limited walkable access across the system PW -ff 0,' - �r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 144 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome Team members created a scorecard and GIS Inventory Map for each park in Georgetown. The Inventory Atlas provided as a supplemental document to the Master Plan includes all parks and facilities. Figure 13: Example of Chautauqua Park scorecard and GIS inventory. See the Inventory Atlas, a supplemental document to the Master Plan. r: Chautauqua Park Components '-�— Trails ri r, Georgetown City Lirnits Indoor Facilities Locations Chautauqua Park Initial Inventory Date: 3/26/2021 Total Neighbo ood �•2 GRASP'? Score � Total community Approximate Park titi.2 GRASP:- Score Acreage: 23.4 Owner Georgetown I Drinking Fountains 2 Shade 2 Design and Ambiance Seating 2 Trail Connection 2 2 BBCI Grills 2 Park Access 2 Dog Pick -Up Station 2 Parking 2 Security Lighting 2 Seasonal Plantings 0 &ke Parking 0 Ornamental Plantings 2 Restroorns 2 Picnic Tables 2 General Comments Rwersldeparkatongthe South Rrver Tmil. Could he made into lnerlhcad Park boundary untrue. Contains Picket pnmetivelreil.Water access not promoted hero Components with Score MAPID Component Quantity Lights Neighborhood Community Comments Score Score L004 PARCEL I 2 2 C431 Trail Access Point 1 2 2 Lacks some amenities Net may make 4 a tmilhead C034 Natural Mae 1 2 2 C032 Water, Open 1 2 2 San Gabriel River C031 Open Turf 1 2 2 C030 Shaker. Large 1 2 2 CO29 Playground. Local 1 2 2 CO28 Darrwnd Field. Practice 1 2 2 Park boundary is untrue. diamond within boundary CO26 Basketball Crud 1 Y 2 2 Park boundary a untrue, coed within boundary CO25 Shaker. Small 1 2 2 CO24 Passive Node 1 2 2 Parks and Recreation §4gf&n Park Summary Georgetown has 53 developed parks with over 300 components. Table 12 shows the type and quantity of components located within each park. Table 12: Summary of developed parks/outdoor locations and their components (sorted by park classification) v 5 a a $ c E .s o ov01 1v07 cnW E LL D t au N01 CL °o c N l (1 E um O 8 G 8 aJ4+! LL E O N N o N l7 UU O O UN N w00 H C ¢ ° L > y ! u aH Class LOCATION GIS Acres o o 0 O o 79 OvZc u W Booty's Road Park 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 100% c o Garey Park 525 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 11 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 27 44% w San Gabriel Park 177 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 7 10 1 1 2 1 1 1 48 4891. Bark Park 9 1 1 100% Heritage Gardens Park 19 1 1 100% McMaster Athletic Complex 40 2 1 4 1 2 1 4 1 3 1 1 4 25 48% a a Tennis Center 7 1 "8 1 1 11 14 29% VFW Park 21 1 3 1 1 1 1 8 75% Hole Park 13 11 1 1 1 6 100% ndler Park 7 1 1 1 1 1 5 100% E E [Blue utauqua Park 23 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100% 0 u ry Park 71 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 13 9291. *rectangle fields can have mulitple configurations, quanities may vary "pickleball courts overlaytenr courts Page 146 of 291 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Parks and Recreation W§Agfp4p Table 13: Summary of developed parks/outdoor locations and their components (Cont.) Bedford Park aiiiii■iiiii■■■■■ ■■■i■ei iieiii■■■■■■■■■■■■© Berry Creek Park a■■■e■■■■■■■■■■■■i■■■■e■■i■■e■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■© ,,. Creekside Park Emerald Springs Park ®■■■■■■■■e■■■■■■■■■■■■ee■■■■e■■■■e■■■■■■■■■■em Founders Park ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■e■■■■e■■■■e■■■■■■■■■■■■■■© Geneva Park ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■e■■■■e■■■■e■■■■■■■■■■© ,, Golden Bear Park a■■■■■■■■■■■■■■e■■■■■e■e■■■■e■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■e ,,.. Katy Crossing Park Pinnacle Park ■■■e■■■■■e■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■e■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■© a■■■■e■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■e■e■■■■e■■■■e■■■■■■■■■■ems Jose Park And Splash Pad a■■ee■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■e■e■■■■e■■■■e■■■■■■■■■■e .,. StillwaterPark a■■■■e■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■e■e■■■■e■■■■e■■■■■■■■■ee .,. Summer Crest Park ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■e■■■■e■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■© ,,. Summers Green Park ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■e■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■e University Park a■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■e■■■■e■■■■e■■■■■■■■■■© ,,. ,Village Pool and Park a■e■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■e■■■■e■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■© ,, Williams Drive Pool And Park Woodlake Park ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■e■e■■■■e■■■■e■■■■■■■■■■e ,,. Cedar Elm Park ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■e■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■e Chestnut Park ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■e■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■e ,, SpHng Court Park ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■e■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■e ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■e■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■© .. Page 148 of 291 The system also includes some properties that are currently undeveloped but are maintained by the Department accounting for about 377 acres: Table 14: Undeveloped Properties Undeveloped.. Beretta Park .. 301 Bretta Circle 1.2 Crystal Knoll Park 555 Stadium Dr 2.2 Fountainwood Linear Park 124Silverstone Dr 43.8 Katy Crossing Trail Park* 655 River Bluff Circle 4.1 La Conte rra North 503 Naturita Dr 2.0 La Conterra Parkland 109 W Ridge Lind Blvd 9.3 Lakeside II 909Cedar Lake Blvd 2.3 Lions Head N/A 3.4 Lyndoch Park 612 River Down Rd 36.2 Madison Oaks 203 Madison Oaks Ave 4.3 Old Oak Park 119 River Park Ln 0.3 Pecan Branch Linear Greenbelt N/A 11.6 Pecan Branch Park 3500 FM 971 19.8 River Chase Park 878 Memorial Dr 1.0 River Chase Trail Easement N/A 17.1 River Road Park and Trail* Melanie Ln 7.3 San Gabriel River Frontage 1S00Scenic Dr 12.1 San Gabriel Village Open Space 631 San Gabriel Village Blvd 9.8 South Town Industrial Park 1801 Leander St 0.7 Susana Drive Park 410-416 Susana Dr 1.2 Villages Of Berry Creek Park 30138 Berry Creek Drive 9.9 Vista Vera 111 Meadow Wood Cove 5.0 Waypoint/Estraya 401 SE Inner Loop 2.6 Westhaven N/A 2.1 Westhaven Linear N/A 11.3 Westside Parkland Shell Rd/Bonnet Ln 118.5 Wolf Ranch (Pecan Bottom & TC) * N/A 37.2 Woodland Park 301 Woodland Park 1.3 Total Acres 377 * regional trail corridors The Department is responsible for the stewardship of park land and promoting an equitable application of park resources. An objective approach to stewardship and resource allocation is to align park land and park facility types to a park hierarchy or class system that is applied city-wide. This class system has been in practice for some time within Georgetown. The reclassification of certain properties will allow for a more appropriate and practical application of resources and user expectations. Parks and Recreation §4q�f&n The following table shows current park classifications: • Regional Parks • Significant number of total components • Range 25 to 50 components • Often have multiples of the same component For example, San Gabriel Park has 17 shelters. • Special Use Parks o Often have very specific offerings that dictate the total number and diversity of components • Community Parks • Often attract users from across the community and therefore offer a large number of components and may offer multiples of the same component • Range 5 to 13 components • More likely to offer sports fields and tennis courts Table 15: Current Regional Special Use and Community Parks with park acreage, total components, and component diversity table: a N v v > 0 0 p a E � U ° D Q E Class Location GIs Acres ° c0 Booty's Road Park 14 4 100% . tm Garey Park 514 27 44% cr San Gabriel Park 177 48 48% Bark Park 9 1 100% v D Heritage Gardens Park 19 1 100% McMaster Athletic Complex 40 25 48% C Tennis Center 7 14 29% VFW Park 21 8 75% Y Blue Hole Park 13 6 100% Chandler Park 7 5 100% E Chautauqua Park 23 10 100% E 0 u Rivery Park 71 13 92% • Neighborhood Parks: • Likely to serve residents from within close proximity and often are more limited to walkable access • Typically, there are not multiples of the same component • Appropriate range of total components is between 3 and 6 components. • Pocket Parks: Very limited number of components and serve a very small area or short walk 1 or 2 components I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 150 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome Table 16: Current Neighborhood and Pocket Parks with park acreage, total components, and component diversity table: v 0 0 0 a E � ID a m E Class Location GIS Acres 0 0 c Booty's Road Park 14 4 100% Garey Park 514 27 44% .0 San Gabriel Park 177 48 48% v Of Bark Park 9 1 100% Heritage Gardens Park 19 1 100% v D McMaster Athletic Complex 40 25 1 48% Tennis Center 7 14 1 29% VFW Park 21 8 75% > Blue Hole Park 13 6 100% Chandler Park 7 5 100% E Chautauqua Park 1 23 10 100% E 0 Rivery Park 71 13 92% Parks and Recreation � §. gfp4p Trails Summary Trails in Georgetown are provided by several different entities including the City, Williamson County, Army Corp of Engineers, Sun City, and other private developments. For the purposes of this inventory, trails refer to linear pathways connecting to multiple destinations. Loop trails completely contained within a neighborhood park are not considered part of the City's trail system. The trails are typically paved and constructed to provide a surface and overall condition that allows for users of all abilities. Access to trails within private development, such as Sun City, is limited to resident members of that community. So, while they are identified on the following map, they are not part of a public trails system. The largest continuous trail combines segments of the Randy Morrow Trail and the Lake Georgetown Trail. The portion along the San Gabriel is made predominately of paved multi -use trails, while the Lake Georgetown portion is unpaved walking/biking trails. The City's existing trails system is primarily along the San Gabriel River corridors, which provide access to the central portion of the city. The San Gabriel River trails are by far the most popular and accessible trails in Georgetown. These trails connect several parks within the city, where trail heads with parking and other supporting facilities can be found. The San Gabriel River trails run adjacent to several existing and developing residential neighborhoods. Additions to these trails are being built by both the City as well as part of new developments, which is required by the City's development regulations. The vision for the City's trail system is to expand these trails outward and provide more connection to and along these routes. As these are off-street network trails the oversight and responsibility for implementation is solely on the Department. 14 Trails Network 7' Cdy of Gaoryela.m `J \ 5 city �N 31 y� / on USAGE sy° ^� 4n1 " ✓ W.16 County :. Co gCiue / Wall Ranch \` / Sun Cay J M. �c\ \ argetown 'n CJ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 152 of 291 • GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome • City of Georgetown A mix of paved multi -use and decomposed granite paths o 18.5 miles of total trails, 7.6 miles of multi -use trail along San Gabriel River o 8.3 miles of equestrian and bike trails located at Garey Park • United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) A mix of paved multi -use paths and unpaved nature/single track trails o 33.65 miles of total trails • Williamson County o A mix of paved multi -use paths and unpaved walking trails 11.5 miles of total trails • Wolf Ranch o Paved multi -use path along the river o 2.7 miles of total trails, .9 miles of multi -use trail along San Gabriel River • Sun City o Un-paved nature trails o 14.1 miles of total trails Alternative Recreation Providers (Find additional details on alternative providers in Appendix C) There are many ways recreation opportunities are met in Georgetown outside the City's park system. These providers include Williamson County, Army Corp of Engineers, homeowners' associations, private golf courses, the Georgetown Independent School District, the YMCA, and area churches. Except for the other public entities, the degree of availability and access to these facilities is often restricted to membership or association with the organization providing the facility. Newer master -planned subdivisions in the Georgetown area have of late increased the scale and offerings of their residential community amenities. However, these amenity facilities are not extensive and would be considered a supplement to a neighborhood park. School Districts The Georgetown Independent School District (GISD) has several schools within the Georgetown city limits. Many of these schools are available for use by the general public and include playgrounds and play fields at the elementary schools and other facilities, such as the middle school tracks. GISD still controls access to these facilities to ensure that their amenities and facilities remain in good working condition. In addition to access to the general public, the school district partners with area sports league providers, such as the Boys & Girls Club, to use sports facilities and practice fields. GISD has a land/ facility relationship with the Georgetown Soccer Association, which maintains several sports fields on property that GISD owns next to Purl Elementary School. As a whole, the GISD policy is to be receptive to partnerships to increase their role in supporting the overall community. Parks and Recreation � §. gfp4p United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Lake Georgetown The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) created Lake Georgetown in 1979 to achieve their water provision and flood prevention mission for the Georgetown- Round Rock area. The lake area is used for camping, hiking, swimming, fishing, hunting, and boating. The Goodwater Loop is a 26.9-mile trail that follows the lake, passing through each park and past points of interest such as the dam and Crockett Garden Falls. The following is a list of sub -areas of Lake Georgetown and the amenities found within them: • Cedar Breaks Park • Lake Overlook Park • Jim Hogg Park • Russell Park • Booty's Crossing Park • Tejas Park Granger Lake Granger Lake is another USACE property located outside of Georgetown between Taylor and Granger, Texas. The lake has various parks and wildlife management areas on its perimeter that host activities such as hiking, camping, swimming, fishing, and hunting. The following is a list of sub -areas of Granger Lake and the amenities found within them: • Friendship Park • Wilson H. Fox Park • Taylor Park • San Gabriel Wildlife Management Area • Willis Creek Park Williamson County Berry Springs Park and Preserve Located north of Georgetown, Berry Springs Park and Preserve is a 300-acre regional park owned and operated by Williamson County for camping, horseback riding, hiking, and fishing. This Park was built on an old farmstead; some farm buildings and a century -old pecan grove have been maintained. The park gets its name from the stream that establishes the park's western and southern boundaries. With the ability to host events and gatherings, Berry Springs Park and Preserve is a popular place for families and children. Twin Springs Preserve Twin Springs Preserve is a 170-acre area northwest of Georgetown, home to a group of endangered and threatened species. This preserve has over 2 miles of hiking trails that connect to Russell Park at Lake Georgetown. The preserve does not allow camping, biking, or pets. A special training course is required for entry into the preserve. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 154 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome Area HOAs Many subdivisions within the City of Georgetown have a homeowner's association that provides recreational amenities for the development's residents. Older developments typically included a community pool and playground. In contrast, newer development parks include sports courts, picnic/pavilion structures, and trails. These facilities are held in common through the HOA and restrict access to development residents, which is especially true for the pool facilities. Sun City Sun City is an age -restricted master -planned development that caters to empty nesters and retired homeowners. There are numerous amenities available to its residents and residents' guests. Amenities and common space within the 4,100-acre development are owned and/or maintained by the Sun City Community Association. These facilities, including the three golf courses, are restricted to Sun City residents and their guests. MUDS Municipal Utility Districts are a political subdivision authorized by the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to provide utility -related services such as water, sewage, drainage, and parks. Some MUDS located within the City of Georgetown's jurisdiction provide park facilities, in most instances this refers to MUD -controlled properties that have multi -use trails present. Golf in Georgetown There are five golf courses within the city limits of Georgetown, and all of them are privately owned facilities with private membership. Those courses are Georgetown Country Club, Berry Springs Country Club, and the 3-courses part of Sun City. System Map The system inventory map shows the relative size and distribution of existing parks and recreation facilities across Georgetown. Parks and Recreation � §. gfp4p Figure 14: System Map. Larger scale maps are located in the appendix. 0,1 cs �A \ Chli AEn ;�---""er"4 � �S • l j ` •' �'''� r \ 1 � t'ta4+ P ra Ie Adluns Ppr)c r ✓�: 'i Miles V ChakdMParl 0 0.5 1 2� j - pap—umstormro r too a...ng, m,,,y,,en peoareamr oroesu tam r deg �. g will rnq y WrpoS add.rs ird b tl h a rlhe e/f +• b\ eE armarr aata am'mar r t n - inii.rcion y or N can.f. In.t T i Map Pre aucea lore 9 t Tto n ah GRASPaT am I ', M' �\ ., P,-aendelrt oral Oral ci0 current color an inns arenarratNe. I $' cesena manents nay,ay -n sue aotor ana o-ansoarencr rrom _ tnasa shown on oa , G \ ,,,,,,,s_� �o r� "-Splash Pa GlS calla sources tncluOe. Georgetown GMSPa Team Esa. � I -T<7 Splash Pad CcWn;ht02021 Georgetown V �1 (` I Founders Park-lt' --� 1 --Kelley Park — Id Legend • Recreation Component -I Existing hail Lake I River {} Indoor Facility = Limited Access Freeway i Park I Location Building Footprint — Highway Other Park — Major Road Sun City Other Street /Road `. r-� City Limit Railroad ark \ on Be rPark Im.P y -i Id a — een Park . / meek pjrk \Jr r i.QTennis��er ^� z� + f \ 4 Id Springs \\ 7 I r L \ 3Ila 1 ossrrlp'ark illwate�rPirk; :.�` McAlaatbr A�{letic Complex - o- '.• ark Park �1 r r ndndge lhlla.L,e'Park' k - t\ ':\ Summer�crdst PedF 1. t L7 ti< VFW Park \ n i W a M. Park Meadows Parke \'University Park .t tRaintretFParI� 1\` N„ Cr HeAtyge aJ"$ens Park i erteva Park 1 c ?` k \ \ Conterip' t rth Parma' tv lf�r` `birl r'Rark \ all -\ r 9lem• l,,.t . Page 156 of 291 e GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome Step 2: Assessment and Analysis - How Are We Doing? Park Scoring In addition to locating components, the assessment includes quality, function, condition, and modifiers. Cumulative scores reflect the number and quality of these components and the availabilidty of modifiers such as restrooms, drinking fountains, seating, parking, and shade. In general, higher scores reflect more and better recreation opportunities than lower scores. There is no ultimate or perfect score. The scores illustrate how the parks and components serve city residents and users within a reasonable proximity. Table 17: Park Scores (right) Class LOCATION GIS Acres v a a E a V F > 0 Q E 0 Bedford Park 2 2 100% Berry Creek Park 3 3 100% Creekside Park 1.1 3 100% Edwards Park 0.7 2 100% Emerald Springs Park 12 6 83% Founders Park 0.2 3 100% Geneva Park 0.9 3 100% Golden Bear Park 3 4 100% Katy Crossing Park 1.5 3 100% Kelley Park 1.2 4 100% La Conterra North Park 1.9 4 100% Lakeside Park 2 5 100% 0 Madrone Park 1.4 3 100% 0 0 t Meadows Park 2 5 80% 0 0 t y Old Town Park 2 4 100% Pinnacle Park 10 3 100% Z Rabbit Hill Park and Splash Pad 16 6 100% Raintree Park 0.2 2 100% River Ridge Pool and Park 13 2 100% Rowan Park 2 6 83% San Jose Park And Splash Pad 3 6 100% Stillwater Park 3 6 1 100% Summer Crest Park 16 2 100% Summers Green Park 1.6 1 100% University Park 3 3 100% Village Pool and Park 5 3 100% Williams Drive Pool And Park 2 2 100% Windridge Village Park L4 1 100% Woodlake Park 0.6 4 100% Adkins Park 0.1 2 100% Cedar Elm Park 0.7 1 100% Chestnut Park 0.4 1 100% Downtown Splash Pad 0.04 2 100% Fairfield Park 0.4 2 100% Y 0 Green Grove Park 0.6 1 100% 0. Hanover Park 0.2 1 100% Shell Park 0.2 1 100% Spring Court Park 0.4 1 100% Village Glen Park 0.3 1 1 100% Westbury Park 0.4 1 1 100% Parks and Recreation � §. gfV44 n : What is Level of Service and why do we use it? ; Level of Service (LOS) measures how a system provides residents access to parks, open spaces, trails, and facilities. : It indicates the ability of people to connect with the outdoors and nature and pursue active lifestyles with implications for health and wellness, the local economy, and quality of life. LOS for a park and recreation system tends to mirror ; community values, reflective of peoples' connection to their communities. It is also useful in benchmarking current conditions and directing future planning efforts. The service offered by a park or a component is a function of two main variables: what is available at a specific location and how easy it is for a user to get to it. ■ What is GRASPW GRASP° (Geo-referenced Amenities Standards Process) has been applied by GreenPlay in many communities across the country as a measure of LOS. With GRASP°, information from the inventory combined with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software, produces analytic maps and data, called Perspectives that show the distribution and quality of : these services. • ■ ■ What do Perspectives do for us? Perspectives can take the form of maps showing the LOS of a particular type of service, or other analysis incorporating : statistics, diagrams, tables, and charts that provide benchmarks or insights useful in determining community success in delivering services. The inventory performed with the GRASP° -IT tool provides a detail of what is available at any given location, and GIS analysis measures user access. People use various ways of reaching a recreation destination: on foot, : on a bike, in a car, via public transportation, or some combination. In GRASP° Perspectives, there are two distinct types of service areas for examining the park system to account for this variability: 1) Neighborhood Access Perspective - uses a travel distance of one mile to each component. It is intended to account for : users traveling from home or elsewhere to a park or facility most likely by way of a bike, bus, or automobile. 2) Walkable Access Perspective - uses a travel distance of 1/2 mile, a suitable distance for a ten-minute walk. ; : For each Perspective, combining the service area for each component, and the assigned GRASP° score into one overlay, ; creates a shaded "heat" map representing the cumulative value of all components. This allows the level of service to be measured for any resident, user, or location within the study area. The deeper the shade of orange, the higher the LOS. Further discussion on Perspectives and other GRASP° terminology is found in the appendix c. Figure 15: Example of a GRASP° Level of Service Perspectives Heat Map ■ Notes: : ■ �✓ �merald Springs � � `mot ■ ■ - Park-�' 1. Proximity relates to access. A component within a ; r 'Willie dfra grir'ef '"�� -'+ specified distance of a given location is considered ■ ■ # �� j KatKrossidg ,ark • ■ Pool 8 Park 1;"accessible". "Access" in this analysis does not refer to ■ San Gabriel ■ �. wStillveter Park ; Park MyMa Iaiiletc Complex access as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act ■ • `9arkPark (ADA). ■ ry.Park ® ► Windridge Villa . P.rk • ■ ue ole Park U % Summerltrest Parke^ ■ VFW Park r 2. Walkable access is affected by barriers, obstacles to free ■ [akqua F 1 dsParrk and comfortable foot travel. The analysis accounts for these. is Meadows Park 3. The LOS value at a particular location is the cumulative ■ �' _ �Q�,r University Park ; Rainlree Park value of all components accessible to that location. ■ ■ ro _• Park �;,0 \�% ��c He itage Gardens Park ■ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII • • Page 158 of 291 GEORGETOWN T e x a s more than welcome Walkable Access To Recreation Pedestrian Barriers Pedestrian barriers such as major streets, highways, railroads, and rivers significantly impact walkable access in Georgetown. Zones created by identified barriers, displayed as dark purple lines, serve as discrete areas accessible without crossing a major street or another obstacle. Green parcels represent parks. Figure 16: Walkability barriers "cut-off" service areas where applicable. The dark purple boundaries represent pedestrian barriers Walkability is a measure of how user- friendly an area is to people traveling on ; : foot and benefits a community in many ways related to public health, social equity, and the local economy. Many factors influence walkability including the quality of footpaths, sidewalks or other ; pedestrian rights -of -way, traffic and road ; : conditions, land use patterns, and public safety considerations among others. : Walkability analysis measures access to recreation by walking. One-half mile : catchment radii have been placed around each component and shaded according to the GRASP® score. Scores ; : are doubled within this catchment to reflect the added value of walkable : proximity, allowing direct comparisons between neighborhood access and • walkable access. ■ Environmental barriers can limit walkability. The LOS in the walkability analysis has been "cut-off" by identified barriers where applicable. The analysis shows the LOS available across Georgetown, based on a ten-minute walk. Darker gradient areas on the images indicate higher quality recreation assets available based on a half -mile service area. Gray areas fall outside of a ten-minute walk to recreation opportunities. In general, these images show that Georgetown has a reasonable distribution of parks and facilities. Parks and Recreation §�gfp4p Figure 17. Walkable access to outdoor recreation opportunities pia cirr .' <; /Park Village ���ParkCrei7tide ark'kGolden Be 1\� `� •.'.i�j 1 par Elr+s Park f Chestnut Pad4�.?� Westbury,,PaKk i / Pillage (an ark Shell Park — �y v c.�CSYpring Court Park airfield -Park Gibeh Grove Pa Sum(ners G4e n Park 1 �� Hanover Park • \ / r� Adkins Palk ' . \�'BErry Creek Pr k % r :Madrone Palk `�`' I� �1`" RoyretfParit t,1 �� 4.akeside Park' =-Bedford Park / i i''Tennis Carder _ t merald Springs N P \\ .) \ .J I�.�\ < �_� Park s\ E t ad ik Williarhq Drive lJ`\ "mil \1' v \r i` \�\ !` `P Kaoi Pool & Park ty sst�gark � S �'``i \� \\ San Gabriel -4_ aS011wate9RaAc MIleS Cho dler Park1" f McMaster Ailetic Complex Bark Park 11 Tnlomd.dof. arfr�raronal pro and nay nm have Been �,Rivery,Park ?N� Windrldge Village Park orepared for, orbe sumfor legal, ermheedng, or surveying N ` �� t wrooeao. Uoers ofthi—f—agonohoaa a wiew consut the H\. v,IUe Hole Park Summer Crest Park\\ orlmary data and lmormaoon sources to ascenan the usagaty of � ppht VFW Park mormaha\ me ln %thautauqua +.. t \ Ma'Producedfor Georgetown. TX oytheGr SMTeam 1 Eclvards Park rr/ \ Pl.ase reform the project docomnt for mp detsgs and nanatae_ I lR delements ma - for and transparency Mom ` — --_,y r `\ gen my fn sze co -Downtown _ t '- Meadows Park ._ Md. snows on Me map-7""�...s_ - GlSdaasourceslnclude.Georgetown GRASPa Tears Esn. \ -�_129 iI Splash Pad CopyngraD2021 Georgetown V I t Founders Park ,/� e.� \University Park jR•\ T 1 - Kelley Park 1aintre e Park �\ l ( J f _� Old Town Park t\\�'" Heritage Gardens Park -Sap-Jose Park �� `Geneva Park Splash Pad > -RivA@r Ridge Pooh& Pack ' I - C 't __Park _ lContenaNbrth Park,' II Legend -`Rabbit Hill Park �y Per .1 ipplash GRASP® Level of Service . Recreation Component " Existing Trail Lake i River Range: 0 to 407 Indoor Facility = Limited Access Freeway i Park/ Location GreaterAccess ♦ Building Footprint � Highway � Other Park I1, r' � — 11i - — Major Road = t� City Limit i Less Access Other Street lRoad No Accessw110anin � Railroad The orange shading in the maps allows for an understanding of LOS distribution across the city. Areas of higher concentration are at several locations throughout the city. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 160 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome Figure 18: Walk High -Value Area The figure (left) shows the high -value area at San Gabriel Park. The red star indicates the maximum GRASP' value area (407) in the image above. Aerial photography suggests very limited residential in this area. But within this area, residents or users can access 48 components at this single park and the two indoor facilities. Figure 19: Another example (Right) This area gives users access to 32 components at seven different parks in a more residential neighborhood with fewer pedestrian barriers. The ability to show where LOS is adequate or inadequate is an advantage of using GIS analysis. First, an appropriate level of service for Georgetown residents is determined. A review of the scores suggests that a reasonable target is three to four components and access to a significant trail corridor or six elements where trail access is more limited. In this case, the target value would be comparable to Woodlake Park, Berry Creek Park, or Founders Park and a trail. Parks such as Blue Hole Park, Rabbit Hill Park & Splash Park, and Stillwater Park can reach this target without trail access. The diversity within these parks represents the critical finding that parks vary greatly yet score similarly in the GRASP° system and are presented in the following table. Table 18: Target Park Calculation Park/Location pil 10 l oB C 0' z C o Z a e v=i v=i � a Y CL fi ci , V o c G CL vo Woodlake Park m������������������������ • Berry Creek Park Parks and Recreation §�gfp4p Walkability Gap Analysis These parks and their components are likely to attract users from a walkable distance. The following map brackets GRASP' values to areas that meet this target score or are below. In the following figure, purple areas indicate where walkable LOS values meet or exceed the target. Areas shown in yellow on the map can be considered areas of opportunity. These are areas where land and assets are currently available but do not provide the target value. Improving the LOS value in such areas may be possible by enhancing the quantity and quality of features in existing parks without acquiring new lands or developing new parks. Another option might be to address pedestrian barriers in the immediate area. Figure 20: GRASP° Walkable GAP analysis Legend GRASP® GA Target Score 410 At or At Below 1 No Acci W Pedest Purple regions (11%) of the City's land area has LOS that exceeds the target value. Yellow regions (26%) have access to some recreation but not at the target level. Grey regions (62%) are without access to recreation opportunities within a ten-minute walk. However, the picture is much more favorable when you consider where people currently live in Georgetown. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 162 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome Figure 21: Percentage of Population by service level % of Population with Walkable Access to Outdoor Recreation dim Percent Total Area =0 47% - Percent Total Area >0 AND <Target Score 32% ■ Percent Total Area >=Target Score This chart displays the level of service based on where people live. Combining LOS with census data, the analysis indicates that parks are generally well placed and capture a higher population than land area. Georgetown is better positioned, with 55 percent of residents in walking distance to some outdoor recreation opportunities, including 23 percent within a target score area. While this percentage is low, there are several opportunities to increase these percentages. Neighborhood Access to Outdoor Recreation Perspectives also examine neighborhood or one -mile access to recreation opportunities. Darker gradient areas on the following images indicate higher quality recreation assets based on a one -mile service area. In general, these images also show that Georgetown has an excellent distribution of parks and facilities related to current residential development. Gray regions indicate that recreation opportunities are beyond a one -mile service area. Figure 22: Georgetown Neighborhood Access to Outdoor Recreation -so ri c1 ty Park "`� "1 peeZSMe Parld �� CM1eatn�PArk�WeaWury Park Mllage Glenpart � 1 �///��CeM1ell Park Syry� C tPaAI / ai„ialtrPirk _ 5-_'� ns➢R Grove Par ( SUminers /O/feen Park l over rk ♦BknY Croak PirF Adklns Park /' \ al6kesId. Park Rq riPark �"BsMartl Perk v nnla Center PA \ aP-I 11 POkae `\\ San Gabriel ♦5511weter Peh y'\ Park Park/ � ''✓ McMaster ASH tic Complex rtri rk I 1 J\ i[rvery�Park W tl tlge Nlls\g\,e��Park le Part \ \ SummarQreet Papkr VFW Pe k \ Meadows Park rtl �L • t�a�� Verkrk Perkk 1RalnVae Oltl Town Perk H. -Ga d—Park Sar�'aos<PerM \ a }\ y nave Park P* rRidge � Po ,PIk Park Legend GRASPOLevelot Sa . . Recreation Component'" EA,ting hell Lake l River Range:Otoa95 Indoor Facility = LimiWd A-- Freeway + Park l Location IM Gmat cceaa ♦ Building Footp„t„ Hlghw rf:OMer Perk Major Reatl r_Ji city Limit Less Access OtMr Street gioad NOAccess wl t-mile �Reilroetl Parks and Recreation §�gfp4p Figure 23: Neighborhood Access High -Value Area }Williams�Dflve J _ _ `� N Higher concentration areas are notable, with the area's Pool 8 Park �_.� highest values near VFW Park. For example, the red star �' ' d' h 'fi GRASP° I 695 San Gabro 4 rws Park - kA E ♦ k , le Pa L t } VFW lark Edwards P rk 4✓ Figure 24: Neighborhood Gap Analysis Legend GRASP®( Target Scc + At or Bel of No A In Icates t e most signs cant va ue area ( ) in the following figure. The dashed line is a 1-mile service area. From here, residents can access 139 components at 14 parks/locations, trails, and two indoor facilities. Neighborhood Gap Analysis While nearly all residents have access to outdoor recreation opportunities within one mile, a few residential areas may benefit from park improvements or upgrades in existing parks or undeveloped parks, as shown in the following image. Figure 25: Percentage of Population by service level % of Population with Neighborhood Access to Outdoor Recreation Percent Total Area =0 Percent Total Area >0 AND <Target Score ■ Percent Total Area >=Target Score I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 164 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome Several parks in the yellow or low -scoring areas could increase the walkable level of service if improved. Raintree Park, Meadows Park, Katy Crossing Park, and Heritage Gardens are examples of parks in areas needing additional recreation opportunities. The following table highlights parks with the potential to impact low -score areas and offers suggestions for improvements. For final recommendations see action plan (page 101) Table 19: Parks in low -scoring areas Park Address 11 Priority Initial Park Observations Level of Service Conaments and Suggestions Acres LOS Class d � N Atypical neighborhood park but it lacks trail Berry Creek Park 1100 Shinnecock Hills 19 Moderate Wooded park with many trees access. The property has room to add 2 7 Neighborhood Or components like a shelter, or a loop walk. Existing trees may limit open turf use. Emerald Springs Park 36040k1 Mill Road 31 Moderate Large pa rkwtmostly natural area Couldh another component in this park 11.9 Walk/Neighborhood like a ,add oop walk or trail. No trails in area Garey Park has limited neighborhood value Huge former ranchwlth many amenities, but very a high community value as Garey Park 6450 RM 2243 8 Low trails: and an event center. Paid entry. No destination park. It is outside Georgetown 513.9 Neighborhood bikes on trails but does have residential in the area. Access is mostly limited to motor vehicle. Lacks trail access but there is space for Golden Bear Park 107 Golden Bear Dr 33 Moderate New additional components like a shelter, picnic 2.7 Neighborhood tables, etc. Heritage Gardens Park 2100 Hutto Rd 30 High Planned and funded renovation Consider additional recreation components 19.0 Walk/Neighborhood to serve the neighborhood to the south On the edge of target area nith trail and Consider additional recreation components Katy Crossing Park 224 Katy Crossing Blvd 18 High school close by to serve neighborhood to the east. 1.5 Walk/Neighborhood Consider trail connection to park Area lacks trail access. Park could add Meadows Park 321 Meadow Park Dr 24 High Neighborhood park with ornamental additional components (like a bop evalk or 2.1 Neighborhood plantings court) to increase scare. Park has a HOA pool onsite and is serving Pinnacle Park 309Gmenslope Ln 17 Low immediate neighborhood. There are other park has room for additional components 10.2 Walk/Neighborhood HOAparks and undeveloped properties nearby Raintree Park 302 Raintree Cr 6 Hilt Low service area with minimal access to Park has limited room but needs upgraded 0.2 Walk/Neighborhood other. Improvements are planned Playscape and fenced pool area with tables Park lacks significant space for add tional River Ridge Pooland Park 414 South Ridge Circle 9 Low and shade within pool area components, Lyndoch undeveloped land is 1.3 Neighborhood near and could add service to area RNery Park 1125 Woodlawn Ave 34 Moderate Park overall scores above target and has Consider adding some components north of 71.4 Walk/Neighborhood trail access the riverto serve adjacent neighborhood San lose Park And Splash Pad 17075an Jose 6t 36 Low Park scores above target but could add Address possible pedestrian barriers in area 2.8 Walk/Neighborhood additional components to increase its walkable service area Park is adjaceatto a HOA pool and has Consider adding new components such as Summer Crest Park 1201 Ashberry Trail 11 Moderate space for additional components. The parkdoes shelterorcourt and upgmdingthe low 1.6 Walk/Neighborhood have fairly limited accessto most of scaring playground. the neighborhood. It is near University Park Could add some neighborhood park Tennis Center 400 Se renada Dr 14 Low Limited residential nearby components since it does have a playground 7.3 Walk/Neighborhood and open turf but not a priority Park Is adjacent to HOA pool and has space Consider completingthe loop walk and new University Park 2501 University Park 15 Moderate for additional components. The park has components such asa court. Upgradinglow 2.6 Walk/Neighborhood Or limited access to most of the neighborhood. scoring playground should be a pnority. Near Summer Crest Park Neighborhood is fairly well served but some Williams Drive Pool And Park 3201 Williams Or 12 Low Minimal space for additional components areas to the south and east could benefit 22 Walk/Neighborhood here from additional service in area. Area may have eicisting HOA services Parks and Recreation §�gfp4p GRASP' Comparative Data Georgetown parks are comparable to other agencies across the county by using these scores. The GRASP' National Dataset currently consists of 79 agencies, 5,071 parks, and over 27,600 components. Top 100 components Top 10% 3 of all of all park Agencies park 4 scores Parks scores When comparing Georgetown to other agencies and parks in the dataset, three parks score in the top ten percent of all parks in the overall GRASP' score. Three of those three parks are in the top 100 parks overall. Additional findings in these comparisons reveal that Georgetown is above the average other similar -sized agencies in total locations, parks per capita, and components per capita. Total Locations Park per 1,000 People Components / I Population Frederick, MD - 85 Angleton, TX -1.2 Grand Junction, CO - 53 Frederick, MD -1.1 Angleton, TX - 5 Frederick, n, - 5 Perris, CA - 26 Pearland, TX - 1.0 Grand Junction, CO - 5 Pearland, TX - 21 Grand Junction, CO - 0.8 4Pearland, TX - 2 Tamarac, FL -15 Bloomington, IL - 0.5 52 Angleton, TX -13 Perris, CA - 0.3 Bloomington, IL - 4 Perris, CA - 2 Tamarac, FL - 0.2 Tamarac, FL - 2 However, Georgetown scores lower in components per location and average park score. These scores are directly related to the large number of parks that are currently underdeveloped or minimally developed. Components Per Location Avg Score Per Location Angleton, TX - 8 Pearland, TX - 8 Pearland, TX - 74 Bloomington, IL-7 Tamarac, FL-42 Tamarac, FL-7 31 Bloomington, IL-36 Grand Junction, CO - 6 Grand Junction, CO - 34 Perris, CA - 6 Angleton, TX - 33 Frederick, MD - 4 Perris, CA - 31 Frederick, MD - 21 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 166 of 291 GEORGETOWN T E X A S more than welcome